HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jschell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Gift Horse)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: AZT Resistance
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:29:37 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1ikb6eINNg7m@spim.mti.sgi.com> Jeff Dauber writes:
>In article <43171@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, I write:
>
>|> Well Paul, if you had read the rest of Clayton's article, and maybe
>|> even included it in your quote, then you would have understood that

I apologize for this part.  I noticed after I sent the article that
your reply was valid for his post.  I didn't mean to include a
personal remark.  Sorry.

>|> he was referring specifically to people who were taking AZT because
>|> they already had AIDS and _knew_ it, but were still behaving
>|> promiscously(sp?) and not telling their partners that they had AIDS.
>|> I don't know about you, but to me this sounds like they are
>|> intentionally spreading the disease around.  {ObLiberalAttack -
>|> Don't bring in other STD's because AIDS is "different".  Note: read
>|> above sentence with a whine.}

>People taking AZT do not automatically have an AZT immune strain.  Even
>people for who AZT is not longer effective do not necessarily have an
>AZT immune strain.  There is more out there than AZT; DDI, DDC, and D4T 
>as examples.  People who are taking and anti-viral have less HIV in their
>semen than people who are infected and not taking AZT.

It doesn't matter if they have an immune strain or not.  They still
know that they have AIDS.  They may or may not have less actual
virus pieces, and they may think that there's a less chance of their
partner getting AIDS because they're taking AZT, but there's still a
chance.  I can play Russian Roulette with 2 bullets in 6 chambers
(no AZT) or I can play with 1 bullet (taking AZT).  Either way
there's a chance of getting the bullet.  In addition, there's the
chance of getting an AZT immune strain (probably pretty low) and
spreading that around.  IMO, it's not worth the risk.

BTW, you can replace AZT in the above paragraph with any of the
anti-AIDS drugs that Jeff mentioned.

>ObAssholeAttack - It sounds like you are an uptight jerk who cannot get laid
>and therefore needs to move in on other people's sex life.

One personal attack deserves another, but this is a little
unwarranted.  You don't even know me.  I'm not a jerk and I can get
"laid" I just choose not to.

>FWA

BCNU.

+----------------------+------------------------------------------+
|  --> Jon Schell <--  |  "Andre, you mean to tell me that you    |
|      The Master      |  have lost _another_ sub?"               |
|      tm@ucsd.edu     |             -- The Hunt for Red October  |
|   jonschell@aol.com  |  "REboot to the head."  --me             |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------+----+
| No one else would be crazy enough to claim these opinions. | 42 |
+------------------------------------------------------------+----+
From: dauber@tattoo.mti.sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: AZT Resistance
Date: 8 Jan 1993 16:47:10 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: ca
Reply-To: dauber@tattoo.mti.sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
NNTP-Posting-Host: tattoo.mti.sgi.com

In article <43171@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jschell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Gift Horse) writes:

|> Well Paul, if you had read the rest of Clayton's article, and maybe
|> even included it in your quote, then you would have understood that
|> he was referring specifically to people who were taking AZT because
|> they already had AIDS and _knew_ it, but were still behaving
|> promiscously(sp?) and not telling their partners that they had AIDS.
|> I don't know about you, but to me this sounds like they are
|> intentionally spreading the disease around.  {ObLiberalAttack -
|> Don't bring in other STD's because AIDS is "different".  Note: read
|> above sentence with a whine.}


Several facts that you are missing.

People taking AZT do not automatically have an AZT immune strain.  Even
people for who AZT is not longer effective do not necessarily have an
AZT immune strain.  There is more out there than AZT; DDI, DDC, and D4T 
as examples.  People who are taking and anti-viral have less HIV in their
semen than people who are infected and not taking AZT.

To respond to the "HIV in saliva" bullshit which was here earlier.  You
need a vector for entry.  Touching something which contains HIV does not
mean you will be infected, you do need a way to enter the bloodstream,
and that does not exist in your mouth.

ObAssholeAttack - It sounds like you are an uptight jerk who cannot get laid
and therefore needs to move in on other people's sex life.


FWA
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:43:26 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan5.155104.25079@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, carlos@spanky.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:
> In article <13781@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #So you don't believe in "punitive measures."  No prison for murderers?
# #No prison for rapists?  A real liberal.
# 
# 	Death to murderers.
# 	Death to rapists.
# 	Death to child molesters.
# 		.
# And I'm considered a "liberal"...
# BTW, who ever said life was "precious"...
# 
# carlos.

But not a very typical one.  The death penalty for rape was ruled
as cruel and unusual punishment in the 1971 or 1972 by the U.S.
Supreme Court, then heavily stocked with liberals, because the
punishment was "disproportionate" to the crime.  This suggests
that our fine liberal jurists didn't know too many rape victims,
and seen the years of recovery that are sometimes involved.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS gay HIV
Date: 9 Jan 93 17:44:43 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Oracle Corporation
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 <wqa5wB1w165w@surfcty.com> rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin) writes:
>mike@gordian.com writes:

>> In article <BVLZwB2w165w@surfcty.com>, rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin) writes:
>> > mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>> > Of course!  (By the way, there are some feminist theorists who agree
>> > with that sentiment for other reasons...) As an aside, I tend to think
>> > that there's something to the recent studies showing a (admittedly, at
>> > this time, nebulous) link between gayness and biology.  I don't believe
>> > that the people at the Human Genome Project will one day leap out of
>> > their chairs because they've discovered the sequence that causes
>> > homosexuality, but I do think they will find genes that push people one
>> > way or the other.  The religious right will be in for a shock: God made
>> > gay men, for the writing is on the DNA!

>>   And then we can [have?] tests. Wonderful.

>If the search and seizure clauses in the constitution were taken
>seriously, this wouldn't be an issue.

Sure it would.  Imagine the stink if women started aborting gay
fetuses?  Better yet, imagine if discovering the gene complexes and
how they work leads to a drug therapy that can be given to a pregnant
mother to change the fetus's sexual orientation?



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: jschell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Gift Horse)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: AZT Resistance
Date: 11 Jan 93 07:48:41 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: University of California, San Diego

Jeff Dauber writes:
>Jon Schell writes:
>|> It doesn't matter if they have an immune strain or not.  They still
>|> know that they have AIDS.
>
>First of all, being HIV+ does not mean that the person has AIDS.  Your 
>grasp of the terminology is almost as firm as your grasp on the issues
>associated with the illness.

I was only being as loose with my terminology as the person who
started the thread was.  I know that just having the HIV virus
doesn't mean that you have AIDS, yet.  I was assuming from previous
posts that only people who had developed AIDS took AZT and those who
were only HIV+ didn't.  I don't waste time looking up little things
that are irrelevant to the actual argument.  The point is that if
they are taking a drug to counter the effects of the HIV virus then
they know that they are carriers.  I will concede that they might
not know that they can spread it, but I really find that pretty
unlikely by now.

>|> They may or may not have less actual
>|> virus pieces, and they may think that there's a less chance of their
>|> partner getting AIDS because they're taking AZT, but there's still a
>|> chance.  I can play Russian Roulette with 2 bullets in 6 chambers
>|> (no AZT) or I can play with 1 bullet (taking AZT).  Either way
>|> there's a chance of getting the bullet.  In addition, there's the
>|> chance of getting an AZT immune strain (probably pretty low) and
>|> spreading that around.  IMO, it's not worth the risk.
>
>However, both people involved in the sex act are responsible for their
>behavior.  You seem to be just "blaming" the person who is HIV+.

Of course both people are responsible.  I blame the HIV+ person for
not telling his/her partner that s/he is a carrier.  Now if the
partner is willing to run the risk, more power to 'em.  As long as
the partner is informed, it's his/her decision.

BCNU.

+----------------------+------------------------------------------+
|  --> Jon Schell <--  |  "Andre, you mean to tell me that you    |
|      The Master      |  have lost _another_ sub?"               |
|      tm@ucsd.edu     |             -- The Hunt for Red October  |
|   jonschell@aol.com  |  "REboot to the head."  --me             |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------+----+
| No one else would be crazy enough to claim these opinions. | 42 |
+------------------------------------------------------------+----+
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: AZT Resistance
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:27:22 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1ikb6eINNg7m@spim.mti.sgi.com>, dauber@tattoo.mti.sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
> In article <43171@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jschell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Gift Horse) writes:
# |# Well Paul, if you had read the rest of Clayton's article, and maybe
# |# even included it in your quote, then you would have understood that
# |# he was referring specifically to people who were taking AZT because
# |# they already had AIDS and _knew_ it, but were still behaving
# |# promiscously(sp?) and not telling their partners that they had AIDS.
# |# I don't know about you, but to me this sounds like they are
# |# intentionally spreading the disease around.  {ObLiberalAttack -
# |# Don't bring in other STD's because AIDS is "different".  Note: read
# |# above sentence with a whine.}
# 
# ObAssholeAttack - It sounds like you are an uptight jerk who cannot get laid
# and therefore needs to move in on other people's sex life.
# 
# FWA

If other people's sex lives (or at least the consequences) would 
stop moving in on my wallet for the kill, no one would have any
basis for concern about the irresponsibility in question.

If you want someone else to pay for your party, they will inevitably
decide what sort of music you dance to.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz/Capital Punishment
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:18:55 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <106402@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <13823@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #The death penalty for rape was ruled
# #as cruel and unusual punishment in the 1971 or 1972 by the U.S.
# #Supreme Court, then heavily stocked with liberals, because the
# #punishment was "disproportionate" to the crime.  This suggests
# #that our fine liberal jurists didn't know too many rape victims,
# #and seen the years of recovery that are sometimes involved.
# 
# Capital punishment is not punishment. Punishment requires primarily
# mental suffering, and the death penalty gives the criminal an easy way out.

1. I wasn't taking a position in favor of the death penalty, so much
as pointing out the absurdity of the liberal position.

2. By the time someone is executed in this country, they have had
many years of mental suffering waiting for the courts to finish
arguing.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz/Capital Punishment
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:11:37 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <106402@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>>The death penalty for rape was ruled
>>as cruel and unusual punishment in the 1971 or 1972 by the U.S.
>>Supreme Court, then heavily stocked with liberals, because the
>>punishment was "disproportionate" to the crime.  This suggests
>>that our fine liberal jurists didn't know too many rape victims,
>>and seen the years of recovery that are sometimes involved.
>
>Capital punishment is not punishment. Punishment requires primarily
>mental suffering, and the death penalty gives the criminal an easy way out.

Whatever. Capital punishment certainly does prevent that person from ever
being a danger to society again.  For example, that bozo who was just
executed up in Washington state.

While I support applying the death penalty for some violent crimes, I'm
not sure that I want to see it be the penalty for rape.  While I have no
problem if it's the case of some bozo jumping out of the bushes and
attacking someone, cases like the Tyson and Smith cases make me think that
determining guilt/innocence could be unacceptably difficult.

BTW, did everyone see the article in yesterday's SF Examiner, about the
people who want to enact a law in California similar to Colorado's
Amendment 2?  Here's hoping that they get the same sort of surprise that
Operation Rescue got in Bufalo, last year... :) :)
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: AZT Resistance
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:38:47 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <43171@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> jschell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Gift Horse) writes:
>Well Paul, if you had read the rest of Clayton's article, and maybe
>even included it in your quote, then you would have understood that
>he was referring specifically to people who were taking AZT because
>they already had AIDS and _knew_ it, but were still behaving
>promiscously(sp?) and not telling their partners that they had AIDS.
>I don't know about you, but to me this sounds like they are
>intentionally spreading the disease around.

You're making the same mistakes that Clayton made:

1) we now "know" (because we read it in the paper) that the AIDS virus
   becomes resistant to AZT over time.  We didn't "know" this before
   now, so to speak of intentionally spreading AZT-resistant AIDS is
   implying that the people doing this know the future.  I use "know"
   because I would hope that *most* people would be paranoid enough to
   assume that the virus could become resistant, anyway.

2) you are ascribing to malice what is adequately explained by
   stupidity, lust, addiction, and ignorance.

3) a small number of malicious/stupid/lustful/addicted/ignorant
   people taking AZT could account for a large increase in the
   rate of spread.  Include secondary infection by people who
   are infected with the resistant strain but not taking AZT
   (because they may not even know that they have AIDS yet),
   and the the number gets even smaller.

Thus, I'd argue that what Clayton is observing is the result of
typical human behavior, and not some malicicious hemophiliac
conspiracy.

David Chase
Sun
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: jschell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Gift Horse)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: AZT Resistance
Date: 8 Jan 93 06:03:27 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <199882@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov> Paul Bartholomew writes:
>In article <13815@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>> Why does the AIDS situation increasingly smell of people CONSCIOUSLY
>> try to spread this disease?

>Oh, for heaven's sake.  This behavior is not unique to homosexuals nor is
>it unique to AIDS.  It isn't even unique to men.  It is an unfortunate fact
>that there are people who carry STDs (and who know it) that continue to engage
>in sexual activities.  Some of these people, even more unfortunately, do not
>always practice or insist on safe sex.

>Paul Bartholomew
>pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov

Well Paul, if you had read the rest of Clayton's article, and maybe
even included it in your quote, then you would have understood that
he was referring specifically to people who were taking AZT because
they already had AIDS and _knew_ it, but were still behaving
promiscously(sp?) and not telling their partners that they had AIDS.
I don't know about you, but to me this sounds like they are
intentionally spreading the disease around.  {ObLiberalAttack -
Don't bring in other STD's because AIDS is "different".  Note: read
above sentence with a whine.}

BCNU.

+----------------------+------------------------------------------+
|  --> Jon Schell <--  |  "Andre, you mean to tell me that you    |
|      The Master      |  have lost _another_ sub?"               |
|      tm@ucsd.edu     |             -- The Hunt for Red October  |
|   jonschell@aol.com  |  "REboot to the head."  --me             |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------+----+
| No one else would be crazy enough to claim these opinions. | 42 |
+------------------------------------------------------------+----+
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: AZT Resistance
Date: 6 Jan 93 12:33:12 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <13815@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 
> Why does the AIDS situation increasingly smell of people CONSCIOUSLY
> try to spread this disease?

Oh, for heaven's sake.  This behavior is not unique to homosexuals nor is
it unique to AIDS.  It isn't even unique to men.  It is an unfortunate fact
that there are people who carry STDs (and who know it) that continue to engage
in sexual activities.  Some of these people, even more unfortunately, do not
always practice or insist on safe sex.

No grand conspiracy theory is needed to explain this behavior.  A simple
course in behavioral psychology should suffice.

Paul Bartholomew
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz/Capital Punishment
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:09:37 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <13823@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>The death penalty for rape was ruled
>as cruel and unusual punishment in the 1971 or 1972 by the U.S.
>Supreme Court, then heavily stocked with liberals, because the
>punishment was "disproportionate" to the crime.  This suggests
>that our fine liberal jurists didn't know too many rape victims,
>and seen the years of recovery that are sometimes involved.

Capital punishment is not punishment. Punishment requires primarily
mental suffering, and the death penalty gives the criminal an easy way out.
From: dan@BofA.com (Dan Brockman)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz/Capital Punishment
Date: 13 Jan 93 02:16:15 GMT
Organization: Bank of America, Capital Products, RMTG #5906

In article <13859@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <106402@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>> In article <13823@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># Capital punishment is not punishment. Punishment requires primarily

It will do.
-- 
 Daniel Brockman             tel 415-953-0406, fax 415-622-2892
 Bank of America, Dept 5906, 555 Calif St
 San Francisco 94104 USA    email uunet!odinba!dan dan@bofa.com
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:46:40 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <dliebman.32q7@terapin.com>, dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman) writes:
> In article <13719@optilink.COM>, manley@optilink.COM (Terry Manley) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec22.220137.4445@octel.com> keithp@octel.com (Keith Perrin)
> writes:
> >>In article <13704@optilink.COM> manley@optilink.COM (Terry Manley) writes:
# ###Just think if we "blew away" anyone convicted of committing
# ###three felonies.  You get three chances.  Then you die.
# #
# ###What do you think?
# #
# ###Would that have an effect on crime rates?
# #
# ##Well, yes it would, so whats your point.
# #
# #I dunno, which way do you think it would change
# #crime rates and why?
# 
# quite possibly crime rates would go up.  as fast as we'd be able to
# knock them off, we'd replace them with others who've been taught
# that human life is of such little value, who've grown up so
# impressed and compressed by authority that they could not develop
# a moral sensibility of their own, and to whom the threat of death
# is just one more proof that society does not give a shit about
# them.

Are you suggesting that the current system, which operates on your
principles, does a better job of promoting "human life has value"?

# most of us these days do not consider it sufficient to tell our
# children "Because I'll hit you if you do," because we've realized
# that they will tend to assume that this is a universally valid
# axiom.  threat is not a reason; it is the absence of reasons.

You mean, if someone is being raped, they shouldn't threaten to
kill the rapist?  You mean, if a child who doesn't understand that
you don't walk into the middle of a busy street to retrieve a 
ball can't be made to understand the seriousness of walking out
into the street, we should just wring our hands about his death?

# by the way, these words should not be construed as a reply directed
# solely at the crap that commonly issues forth from that manley fellow,
# but to the question of punitive measures in general, not limited to
# corporal ones.
# 
# regards,
# dave

So you don't believe in "punitive measures."  No prison for murderers?
No prison for rapists?  A real liberal.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: carlos@spanky.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion)
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:51:04 GMT

In article <13781@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>So you don't believe in "punitive measures."  No prison for murderers?
>No prison for rapists?  A real liberal.

	Death to murderers.
	Death to rapists.
	Death to child molesters.
		.
		.
		.

And I'm considered a "liberal"...
BTW, who ever said life was "precious"...

carlos.
"Negro Equality! Fudge!" - Abraham Lincoln
      ...ames!elroy!jpl-devvax!{beowulf|pituco}!carlos
Newsgroups: ca.politics