HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:00:50 GMT
Organization: Eris's Restaurant

In article <1992Apr7.023640.11726@cs.ubc.ca> manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) writes:
>In article <gPiRiB4w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
[jerkdrool sliced]
>You know, every once in a while somebody astounds me with his or her
>stupidity. This is one of those moments. I can just see biologists
>saying `You know, I'm going to invent in-vitro fertilization, but it's
>for heterosexuals only.'

Consider the British government then, please: they're making (have made?
will be making?) IVF legally available only to heterosexual couples.
Note that this is not just a restriction on the publically-funded National
Health Service (which, because they are the gummint, they think they
have the right to fuck about with ad libido), but on *any* IVF: privately
purchased or domestically procured.  Turkey-baster usage is (has been?
will be?) a criminal activity.

I do believe that they were going to try to restrict it only to heterosexual
*married* couples, but they realised that they'd never get away with it.

Someone in the UK may have better details on this (I haven't followed
the progress of this particular piece of legislation, as assiduously as
I might have, I'm sorry to say; it must be the influence of my own integral
turkey-baster :)), in which case I would like to know more.

>I think we should have djk frozen in a block of Lucite, and placed on
>permanent exhibition. Idiocy on this scale really deserves publicity.

Why does the name "Jeremy Bentham" spring to mind?

				Kay
-- 
6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....
Kay Dekker, Dept of Industrial Design, Coventry Poly, Coventry UK
37 Old Winnings Road, Keresley Village, Coventry   |B0 f t+ g++ k++! s+ e r p!
Phone: +44 203 838668 (work) +44 203 337865 (home) |Deflowerer-of-innocents
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.fan.john-palmer,talk.bizarre
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: John Palmer problem burns John Palmer
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:27:39 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL
Followup-To: alt.fan.john-palmer

According to jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer):
>  Don't let Mr. Deignan get to you. He is a real jerk who likes to 
>incite trouble and also engage in slander and defamation of character.

A better personal recommendation I can hardly imagine.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
      "Informix 4GL is not a 4G, and it's barely an L."  -- John Tombs
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18455 alt.politics.elections:999 misc.taxes:2287 alt.society.civil-liberty:3497
From: lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Vaccination (was: Libertarian)
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:41:45 GMT
Organization: Holos Software, Inc.

In article <1992Apr7.200154.28014@hal.com> ni@hal.com (Minister of Silly Walks) writes:

>The problem comes in that there is a lot of conflicting evidence,
>both ways, as to the effectiveness of vaccination.  In addition,
>the long-term effects of the vaccination is really not very well
>known, nor is the effect that the vaccination has on the rest of the
>body's immune system very well understood.  Basically, there is no
>such thing currently as an informed decision on vaccination.

What in the world are you talking about?  The control of polio and
hooping cough, the erradication of smallpox, the control of rabies
in domesitic canines: these are in dispute?

If you mean that vaccination is not fully understood, well so what,
what in biochemistry is fully understood?

Vaccination and antibiotics have been the two greatest sucesses of
modern medicine.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib.
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:57:11 GMT

sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden) writes:
>|I like it, except where the cards are kept legally stacked as to make
>|it impossible.  For example, there are often laws in place to make
>|sure that using an alternative to government supplied services is
>|illegal.  Those would have to be removed.

>Can you give some examples?

There are tons of laws involved with building roads, for instance,
especially here in California.  The state can contract out to a
private firm to actually build the road, but anyone attempting to
build a cross-country road is going to have to deal with a morass of
laws.   Okay, it's not really laws against _using_ the alternatives,
its laws against creating them in the first place.  I mis"spoke".

It's also illegal, for instance, for someone without the government
mandated permits and affiliations to practice medicine, and thus for
me to use anyone but them.
-- 
Anybody can win - unless there happens to be a second entry.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: "Politically Correct" -- A Quote
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:11:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.101820.23511@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
)In article <visser.702517056@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:

)>	Political correctness is about defining a set of ideas that
)>people must accept or be branded as racist, sexist or any number of
)>other terms.  The idea is that you are REQUIRED to accept the ideology
)>in broad terms and not to cross that idelogy.  Political correctness
)>requires a belief that the complaints of "protected" groups are always
)>correct and are not to be questioned.  To question them implies that
)>the questioner is racist or sexist or hates in any number of ways.

)Political correctness has been a strong tool of the govt. and supporters
)of the status quo in the US for a long time.  In the '50s people who
)were found not to be politically correct were blacklisted.

...

)Nowadays the term is being used to criticize those who ask that people
)not be addressed in a derogatory manner.  In the '60s there was a push
)to have people stop using the term "nigger" to refer to blacks in the US
)society.  Was that an example of objectionable "political correctness"?
)I think it is reasonable to refrain from calling people by names that
)are derogatory references to groups they are part of and from making
)broad generalizations about all members of a certain group.  

)Most of the complaints seem to come from people who feel free to use
)racist, sexist, or whatever language and then object to being publicly
)identified as ones who stoop to that level.

This looks like another good example of PC labelling all oponenets as
'racist/sexist' to me.

)But if government steps in it is a different manner.  I support 100
)students coming to a professor to demand that he keep his sexist views
)out of a poly sci class, but would object to the state ruling that any
)professor who used certain language would be dismissed.

This may be a bit radical, but what if we let blacks complain when people
called them 'niggers' or bashed blacks, let women complain when people
bashed women, and let men complain when people bashed men.  In short,
let the direct victim do most of the protesting - and allow the direct
victim to protest, regardless of his race or gender, if he or she feels
that they are being wronged.

(Yep.  This means no more 'You can't complain, you're a member of the
'opressor' class, so even if you are being wronged in this specific
case, you just have no right to complain and we just won't listen to you
if you try anyway.).
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:14:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U.S Engineer Topographic Labs, ATD, Ft. Belvoir, VA

In article <1992Apr9.133849.11973@oz.plymouth.edu> m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.002351.6896@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>Incidentally, the San Jose Sharks was a good counter-example refutation
>>of my incorrect statement about marketing.  I'll be curious to see
>>whether the franchise can continue its success ten years down the road
>>when the novelty's worn off and the other major professional sports
>>realize what a large market they're ignoring.
>
>We may have the chance to find out.  I heard something about the San
>Francisco Giants thinking about moving to the San Jose area I think.
>I'm not sure about this.  Anyone out there who knows more about thins,
>could you please email me or post.
>
>If it happened, it'd be interesting to see the impact on the Sharks.
>>-- 
>>Ted Frank     
>
>-- 
> Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * 


	I don't know squat about this stuff, but its really good
to see you two talking about nice redblooded American topics like
baseball...must be the season or something.

	Keep up the good work, boys, and by the way GO REDS GO.


	Bill R.


-- 
Bill R.
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 23:28:53 GMT

In article <4591@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil writes:
>  Excerpted from Napa Writer Blames Maleness for Crime
>  by Ron Sonenshine
>  San Francisco Chronicle (April 6, 1992)
>  --
>  A Napa author has filed another salvo in the battle between the sexes,
>  arguing in a new book that the nation's annual $300 billion crime tab
>  is exclusively a masculine problem for which men alone should pay.

I wonder if she supports homosexuals and drug addicts should pay the
bill for AIDS; women should pay for breast cancer; homeless people
pay for homeless hotels; Congresspersons pay for the federal deficit;
women pay for "everything" related to abortion; etc.....

>  The thesis of [June Stephenson's "Men Are Not Cost Effective"], which
>  was published in October, is that men are bankrupting the country by
>  the cost of their incarceration.

If the liberals support the death penalty, there wouldn't be so much
problem.

>  She proposed that men--not women--should bear the cost of imprisonment,
>  perhaps through a special tax.

I thought the fairest way would be to force the criminals to declare
themselves in their tax returns, and tax them. Why tax me? I didn't
do anything wrong. Just want to be consistent.

>  According to Stephenson, women outnumber men in only two of 25 crime
>  categories listed by the U.S. Department of Justice--runaways and
>  prostitution.

Two more: accuse someone, of the oppose sex, of rape when it didn't
happen; and accuse someone, of the oppose sex, of sexual harrassment when
it didn't happen.
I still have yet to see a man accuse a woman of rape when it didn't
happen. Has anyone?

------
Ed
From: rburns@finess.Corp.Sun.COM (Randy Burns)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Jerry's Tax
Date: 7 Apr 92 05:02:03 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: finess.corp.sun.com


I kind of like the idea of a flat tax. It's too bad that 
Jerry Brown botched his proposal though. If he had been willing to
have a 14% tax, he could have allowed for a $6000 per person
(i.e. per man woman and child )exemption. Now _that_ would have
been a proposal that was both more progressive and dramatic-it would
mean that we could entirely take of the tax rolls 
1/3 of the population! (I'm basing this on quote from Brown that
for each 1% increase in the personal tax rate, about 70 Billion dollars
would be raised. I'm figuring that about 180 million people are 
either tax payers or dependents ( the disabled and folks on  social 
security  don't come under this definition). I'm lowballing this 
figure since many folks rent and standard exemption would be more than
their   income. 180 million * 6000 = 1080 Billion in exempted income
or $140.4  Billion in lost revenue. This means that an increase in
the Value added tax of 1% and an increase in the personal  income
tax would pay for this kind of exemption.

What this would also mean, is that  a family of 4, would have
exemptions of around $30,000. This would mean that a family could 
actually live a reasonable lifestyle without even having to _file_
personal income taxes.  Now, they would still be paying the value
added tax on their non-rent expenditures, but this tax is still
less than social security taxes are now. My guess is that we would
see a dramatic increase in initiative, savings and investment.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18229 alt.society.civil-liberty:3457
From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:54:36 GMT
	<1992Apr9.201827.3723@cs.ucla.edu>
	<1992Apr10.042049.12015@athena.cs.uga.edu>
	<1992Apr11.175911.18724@cs.yale.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.

(Nick Jovanovic) writes:
   (Mike Brady) writes:
   >The Libertarian priciples are based upon natural rights.  In speaking of
   >the history and formation of the Libertarian party, David Bergland first

   *Natural rights*? -- there are no such things.  What is natural about
   the right to own property?  Ask a native American.  Or do libertarians
   agree that the government should not involve itself in this sphere of
   social activity?  If I claim to own something, isn't it just a dispute
   between me and whoever else claims the same property?  Why should the
   government be involved in such private affairs between individuals?

I'm certainly not an expert on either movement, but it appears from my
reading that the _insistence_ on "natural rights" neatly determines
the division between Objectivists and Libertarians (though I would
assume that a person who thinks there are such things would also be
welcomed into the Libertarian fold, which seems fairly encompassing).
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17997 alt.politics.elections:843 rec.humor:16293
From: mehawk@reed.edu (Michael Sandy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,rec.humor
Subject: Re: more info on Perot: 1st article of 2
Date: 13 Apr 92 07:22:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Apr13.072240.5082
Distribution: usa
Organization: Reed College, Portland OR

Millions of Americans wished for someone else, _anyone else_, to
join the presidential race.

Thanks to Perot many of them are realizing they should've been more
specific!

Michael Sandy
mehawk@reed.edu  (Moving to:  michaels@m2xenix.psg.com  as of Monday)
From: chas@netcom.com (Chuck Fisher)
Subject: Re: Cornell Protests Military Ban
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 20:06:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Apr9.215314.3413@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> jfh@greenber.austin.ibm.com (John F Haugh II) writes:
>By lowering the tax rate, the income tax the rich pay increases.

Huh?  Must be the "new math" at work here.  If you pay more tax when
the rate lowers, that's because your taxable income grew.  That's a
result of having less deductions.  The amount and type of deductions is
not a result (or cause) of tax rates (although they may be codified in
the same bill.)

>Income tax is a sin tax, just like liquor and tobacco taxes.

Bzzt!  Income tax is currently a "progressive" tax whereas alcohol and
tobacco are "flat" taxes like sales tax.

Chuck
-- 
Chuck Fisher                                  Work: (800) 359-7997 
chas@netcom.com  IP address: 192.100.81.100   Home: (415) 964-2819
{apple,claris,amdahl,tandem}!netcom!chas 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18546 alt.politics.elections:1034 misc.taxes:2307 alt.society.civil-liberty:3526
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: ne
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:29:20 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
>In article <rdippold.703451296@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>>>In article <rdippold.703367531@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>
>>>There would be coups, revolutions, insurecctions, riots, or you name it.
>>
>>Let them riot.  The ones doing the rioting are going to be the
>>nonproductive members of society who were on the government dole.
>>Plus outraged socialists, but they're for gun control anyhow, no
>>threat there.
>>

>Seriously, your flip dismissal of riot and insurrection is rather
>silly. [...]

It was a flip dismissal because I thought it was rather silly to begin
with.  Riots, coups, and revolutions, sheesh.  It wasn't serious and
neither was I.

-- 
My weight is perfect for my height - which varies
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:16957 soc.culture.canada:3194
From: coimay@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu ( LAURA CARRIERE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Sydney Sharpe and Don Braid's new book on the Reform Party
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:55:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr6.172502.11624
Reply-To: coimay@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu
Distribution: ca,usa
Organization: The unofficial LSU news node
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-16525]: sn01.sncc.lsu.edu

In article <1992Apr5.011849.18558@mdivax1.uucp>, robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes...
>Sheila Copps was totally out to lunch when she compared Manning to David
>Duke.

Since I'm a Canadian who has been living in Louisiana for the last year and
a half (throughout David Duke's gubernatorial run) I thought I'd make a
comment on the following statement.

>BTW, Michael, you are aware that the RP ousted the Quebec flag stomper who
>was an executive in an Ontario riding. And that the RP recently tossed
>several members (again, I believe in Ontario) for belonging 
>to a racist organization? The only pattern I see developing here is that
>the RP does not want racists or bigots in its membership roles.

Maybe, but how about this?  The pattern here is that the RP does not want
publicly identifiable racists or bigots in its membership roles.  Duke
desperately tried to distance himself from his unsavory past relationships.
But all the plastic surgery in the world and all his claims of 'having found
God' couldn't change the truth about his blackened soul.  (Sorry, Cajun joke.)
Now I know very little about Preston Manning, and I sincerely doubt that
he is equivalent to the likes of David Duke, but don't ignore the potential
political manuevering behind tossing out a few obvious bad apples.

> Again,
>possibly all part of an elaborate plot, but terribly unlikely.

Not necessarily an elaborate plot, just good politcal sense.  Such actions
draw in votes from moderates, but don't really lose you any extremist votes,
because they have no where else to go.  At least, that was the way David
Duke played it. 

Laura Carriere
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18121 ca.politics:3460 ba.politics:2652 alt.politics.homosexuality:2085 soc.motss:20233
From: djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 19:01:30 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: NMS&Systems Engineering

elf@polari.com writes:

>    You're dodging the question, Danny-boy.  Strikes me you're on real
> shaky ground here.
> 
>          Elf !!

I don't think so.

BTW: You should not put soc.motss in your Newsgroups line.. They
get real weird over there when they see my name and will send me
hate mail whining about the fact that you put soc.motss in your
post to/about/regarding me. 

-djk

--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
--- NMS&Systems Engineering ----------------------------------------
--- Djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM / ..CtEdge!Nitro!Djk ----------------------
-- 'innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri)
Subject: Re: The erudite National Review picks on Bill CLinton's daughter
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:30:08 GMT

sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:

>In article <1992Apr15.214751.28733@anasaz>, john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>|> Keywords: 
>|> 
>|> In article <farenebt.703216062@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri) writes:
>|> ]"As head of the Children's Defense Fund (see "The Week", March 30), she
>|> ]"fulfills" her profession by seeking to police the family. In our view, a woman
>|> ]who inflicted the name Chelsea on her only child is in no position to preach
>|> ]others about children's rights."
>|> ]
>|> ]Gee, this "scholarly" magazine basically makes fun on Chelsea Clinton's name.
>|> ]HOW MATURE! I always thought making fun of someone's name, especially
>|> ]a child's, was behavior reserved for immature parties. I guess the NR 
>|> ]now qualifies.
>|> 
>|> National Review, like most opinion magazines, also has some humour in
>|> it. They make fun of all sorts of things. So what?

>Amen to that. I thought that the comment was quite funny, too. Even if it is not
>funny, I don't see how it constitutes "picking on Bill Clinton's daughter." If
>at all it does pick on someone, it is on Hilary Clinton. And, by her rather active
>involvement in her husband's campaign and the rather obvious influence that she
>exerts upon him on policy issues, it is legitimate to discuss her views as well.

I will do my best to not get any more upset by this but the mag was making
fun of Bill Clinton's daughter's name. Nothing else, pure and simple. I do 
respect Hilary's involvement in the campaign but I wish she would think before
she speaks so as not to continually have to apologize. I don't think she
exerts any notable influence on him. They are two people with refreshingly
independent views. His views are not totally dependent on hers and vice
versa. She certainly influences him no more than the Reagans were influenced
by an astrologist!					

>And they say that Conservatives have no sense of humour!!

Unfortunately, the president is the biggest joke of all.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL	CLARKSON '95		FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
A bleeding heart liberal card-carrying member of the ACLU.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most violent element of society is ignorance."
	---Emma Goldman	(possibly refering to Jesse Helms)

"Political campaigns now are so simplistic and superficial, Mr Candidate.
 In the 20 seconds we have left, could you tell us why?"
	---Political cartoon		
 
"Yassir Arafat had a terrible accident. He tried to fax a mail bomb...."
	---Johnny Carson