HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Periods in Quotes (was Re: Have some respect)
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:49:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <BxvBEH.439@mail.boi.hp.com> rdetweil@boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler) writes:
>AND NOW....
>For something completely different:
>
>In article <1992Nov17.130605.2568@gvl.unisys.com> train@gvls2.gvl.unisys.com (Herbert Rutledge) writes:
>>
>>  [Lots of discussion about NPR deleted]
>>
>>  A small grammatical flame.  The characters .". I assume to be punctuation
>>  marks rather than UNIX C shell metacharacters.  If so, please be advised 
>>  that periods never appear outside of double quotation marks.
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>
>This is one rule of grammar I have never understood.  I didn't understand
>it in grade school and I still don't get it.  I have always gone out
>of my way to make sure I break this rule.  To me it makes perfect sense 
>that the punctuation belongs to the sentence not the quotation - why
>put it in there where it doesn't belong?  The grammar police have a slow
>day at the office or what?
>
>And now, "back to our regularly scheduled Quayle-bashing".  }8-)
	
Not so fast! At last, a justification for a flame war! If you want to 
read some hilarious comments about this subject, read some of 
Stanley Kelly-Bootle's columns in Unix Review. His stories about trying
to convince editors that a period in a piece of code must be outside
of the quote marks are funny beyond belief.

Of course, though, the real reason the period appears inside the 
quotation marks is BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO! DOESN'T ANYBODY 
BELIEVE IN VALUES ANYMORE? PERIODS BELONG IN QUOTATION MARKS AND IT'S
ABOUT TIME WE STAND UP AND STOP THIS APOSTASY AGAINST OUR GRAMMAR!

There - I needed to get that out of my system.
-- 
John Switzer               | "If you ask me, Larry, the Clinton Presidency
                           | has failed. What has he done? Nothing!"
CompuServe: 74076,1250     | --Dave Barry to Larry King, November 12, 1992
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | (P.S. Impeach Clinton, support the coup!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Marilyn the Fashion Don't
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:10:10 GMT

The local paper recently had a feature on updating your image,
and talked about the dangers of keeping the same hair, clothes
and makeup for too long, for fear you'd be seen as "out of it."

One of the examples they gave was Marilyn Quayle, who did not
get rid of her hairstyle (the flip) for a long time.  No wonder
they didn't smoke dope and burn draft cards.  They were too
busy watching Marlo Thomas in "That Girl."

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
From: erics@infoserv.com (Eric S. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Have some respect
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 08:38:15 PDT
Organization: Reigning Cats and Dogs
Reply-To: erics@infoserv.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


ralph@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (ralph.winslow) writes:

> Others have pointed out that Ronnie Rayguns was elected (gasp) and then
> re-elected (Oh my God!!!).  But I think those facts pale beside the fact
> that we'd seen Tricky Dick Nixon as a VP and elected him (words fail
> utterly) and then, following Watergate, re-elected him!!!  Phineas T.
> Barnum was absolutely dead bang.

Well, in fairness to the American people, the series of scandals known
collectively as "Watergate" mostly either became public knowledge or
else occurred after Nixon's re-election. The Watergate break-in occurred
before the election, but it wasn't until after the election that the
break-in and subsequent cover-up was traced to key Nixon aides and to
Nixon himself. Other Watergate-related scandals such as the break-in of
Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office being traced to Republican campaign
workers, the Republican dirty tricks, and the White House "enemies list",
did not become public knowledge until after the election. All of the
Senate and House testimony, plus the evidence which resulted from the
special prosecutor's investigation, the sum of which uncovered the heart
of the scandals, happened after the election, as did related events such
as the "Saturday night massacre", the release of Nixon's tapes and the
discovery of the "eighteen minute gap".

I think it's a testimony to the American system that a man like Nixon,
who carried 49 states with 521 electoral votes in his re-election, had
to resign in disgrace less than two years later when the truth about
him and his aides became known.

-----
Eric Smith
erics@infoserv.com
CI$: 70262,3610


Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: carlson@cwis.unomaha.edu (Brian D. Carlson)
Subject: Re: Re. Integrity
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:43:57 GMT

wilder@nx03.mik.uky.edu (jeff wilder) writes:

>Well, as a "non-traditional" college sophomore (I'm *ancient*!), I prefer
>to comfort myself with the belief that the young people you reference in
>#2 are just too damn stupid to know any better, and might, as their educa-   
>tion progresses, learn to develop opinions, rather that adopting Mommy and
>Daddy's.

	BTW I am a conservative, and I know why I am a conservative. My
parents are both liberals. The majority of my family are liberals. I
just don't agree with the idea that the state is the answer to all our
problems. I don't think that the state should fund any and all abortions
for whatever reason they may be wanted. I believe that people should
have incentive for hard work, and those who don't work hard shouldn't be
patted on the hand with entitlements that cost our government (that's
you and I) the majority of our budget.

	I know why I am conservative, and for one to judge someone as
conservative only because of Mommy and Daddy is a well thought out slam,
but why not think about why they have really chosen to adopt a
conservative philosophy. The reason education produces a lot of liberals
is because (at least in my experience) there is a lot of liberal bias in
text books, and in lobby organizations (NEA for example). 

	I have had more history teachers who were such diehard femenists 
that they couldn't actually teach the subject matter because they were 
too busy trying to rewrite the past to make women the hunters and men the 
gatherers, than I have had conservative teachers who couldn't teach because 
they were trying to push their views on their students.

	Anyway, I'm not opposed to someone being liberal, but I find it
useless to hear(read) those in these groups that attack opposing viewppoints
with gaping holes void of logic. (you're stupid! well she started it.
did not. did so etc...) I know there are liberals who have really 
contemplated why they are that way. 

	The one thing I don't understand is this. If liberalism is the
ultimate anser to all of our countries ills, why are the majority of
liberals I have met bitter and seemingly miserable people, while the
majority of conservatives I have met are easy going people who seem much
more happy with who they are in life?

	Any answers I heaar like 'blah blah blah and their too stupid to
be miserable blah blah blah' I'll just ignore. I'm interested in the
opinions of people like Slartibartfast (Anyone who can design award
winning fjords has got my attention)

Brian D. Carlson
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Have some respect
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:18:00 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson) writes:
: odekirk@math.utah.edu (Elizabeth Odekirk) writes:
: 
: 
: >v115r4q5@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Perry M Jowsey) posts
: 
: >> Did 
: >>anyone watch the debate and actually believe that Al Gore won? Be real!
: 
: >After the debate, NPR had the results from several groups who referee
: >college debates.  They all gave Al Gore more points than Dan Quayle.
: >Gore was clear and precise and got the facts across without resorting to
: >name-calling and finger-wagging.  While being the loudest and most
: >snide may make you the winner in an argument on the playground, it
: >does not win you a debate.
: 
: NPR is a liberal news show. It would not be at all difficult for them to 
: find liberal college debate referees that would side with a liberal
: viewpoint. I am not suggesting that V.P. Dan Quayle won. What I am suggesting
: is that who a person feels the winner is is largely based on which viewpoint
: the person is coming from. Liberals will agree with what Gov. Al Gore said, 
: while conservatives will agree with what V.P. Dan Quayle said. After all, who
: won is only an opinion, and thus can be different for each person.
: 
: >Elizabeth       


Ewww!  It's that evil NPR conspiracy!  Actually, whether one thinks
NPR is a "liberal" news show also seems to depend on whether one is
a liberal or a conservative- in other words, on who's ox is being
gored (no pun).  I remember a study done several years ago- I don't
remember the source or the details, sorry- which suggested that
NPR, along with several TV news shows, tended to rely pretty
heavily on Government sources (read: Republicans and other
establishment figures) to fill their talking head quota; doesn't
exactly fit the stereotype of the "liberal media", out to undermine
our beloved president.  Media bias certainly exists, but it's a
much more complicated and ambivalent phenomenon that the Rush  
Limbaughs of the world would have us believe.
And, just for the record, what is Al Gore governor of?  His church
board?
Bill
From: echeverr@scf.usc.edu (5150)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Now that Dan's out
Date: 19 Nov 1992 18:08:16 -0800
Organization: <censored>
NNTP-Posting-Host: girtab.usc.edu

In article <carlson.722185751@cwis> carlson@cwis.unomaha.edu (Brian D. Carlson) writes:
>Hello,
>	Now that Dan is out of office (soon anyway), is this group going
>to vannish, or will it become a grammar check group?
 ^^ ^^^^^^^
>Yuk yuk,
>bdc

To vanish?  Too Vannish?  Hmmm, Vanna DOES have that silly grin pasted on her
face, just like Danoe...

5150
yuk yuk yerself
From: mwmv@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Michael Mogensen-Vermillion)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: The real Dan Quayle
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:42:09 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department

In article <D2150056.isnl7t@erics.infoserv.com> erics@infoserv.com writes:

(discussion of whether conservatism is pouplar or not deleted)

>In the '60s, being labelled a conservative was just about
>the kiss of death for a political candidate. At the 1964 Republic Convention
>Barry Goldwater had to plead "conservatism in the defense of liberty
>is no vice", but he went on to a crushing defeat in the election.

Goldwater said "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
                ^^^^^^^^^
Granted, in his case, the extremisim was of a conservative bent, but
if you're going to put quotes around a phrase, make sure it's accurate.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Remember ...
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:27:36 GMT


In response to Dr. Norman LaFave's comments on natural gas for
vehicles:

Interesting!   That's what the most sensible thing I've heard on the
environment in a while.  Already there are fleet vehicles that run on LPGG,
like the propane-powered school buses we have here in San Antonio. Now if
only our (inefficient and inconvenient) city buses were converted--the diesel
stench from their exhausts is really bad. One winter evening, about three years
ago, I came hme my coat smelling like diesel fumes because of the exhaust smoke
hovering around the transfer areas.  (and I'm still a conservative! :-)
Xref: sparky alt.fan.dan-quayle:7048 alt.politics.bush:13998
From: erics@infoserv.com (Eric S. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Bush wins doublespeak award
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 13:55:32 PDT
Organization: Reigning Cats and Dogs
Reply-To: erics@infoserv.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1

George Bush won this year's Doublespeak Award, given annually by the
National Council of Teachers of English for "public figures who have
perpetrated language that is grossly deceptive, evasive or euphemistic".
William Lutz, chairman of the council's Doublespeak Committee, cited
three examples:

- Bush expressed hope, following the Persian Gulf War, for an end to
arms proliferation in the Middle East, but then reversed a 25-year policy
and began spending millions of tax dollars on international weapons
shows.

- During Bush's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention
at Houston, he pledged that "every parent and child should have a real
choice of schools, public, private, or religious", but Bush's proposed
$1,000 voucher plan would not be enough to cover tuition for poor children
and would redistribute tax dollars from public schools that serve the
poor to private schools with middle- and upper-class pupils.

- Bush repeatedly charged that Bill Clinton had raised taxes 128 times
as governor of Arkansas. But even though the charge was disputed by
the New York Times as full of errors and distortions, the Bush campaign
continued to use the statistic.

And what of Quayle? Well, the third-place Doublespeak Award went to
all politicians who exploited the term "family values" this year.

-----
Eric Smith
erics@infoserv.com
CI$: 70262,3610


Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: sysmatt@aix3090b.uky.edu (Matt Simpson)
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversery to the Second Couple...
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
X-Path: sysmatt
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:28:42 GMT

OK ... so here we have a fairly reliable report that Danny and Marilyn tied
the knot on 11/18/72. From our earlier discussions re family values,
legitimacy of offspring, and whether Mr> & Mrs. Squeeky Clean did the wild	thing without benefit of holy matrimony, and whether any shotguns were	
pressent in the wedding party, or whether Marilyn wore a maternity wedding
gown ...... does anyone remember the birth date of their firstborn? 
--
This signature file exists because our crappy newsreader won't work without it.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Bush and Dole Back in 1988 (was Re: RFD: alt.loathing.bob-dole)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:20:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.014741.27390@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <6953@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Comet Kahoutek) writes:

>>Is it just my imagination or has Speaker Dole turned quite sour of late?
>>All of a sudden he's revering the late George Bush as if he were the
>>Messiah--and Bush is the guy who knocked Dole out of the 1988 contest
>>with more of his dirty campaign tactics.

>	How did Bush campaign against Dole back then? I forget the
>details.

Do the words, "Stop lying about my record!" ring any bells?

Which reminds me of the best commentary I saw on the Bush campaign.
Someone said "Bob Dole ought to go up to Bush and tell him something
different this time around -- 'Stop lying about my record, and start
lying about your own.'"

>	Although I certainly agree that one may wonder what Dole sees in Bush.

>>Dole has hinted of his interest
>>in going after the 1996 nomination, but his bitter disposition would
>>make him appear as a long shot to rally public affection.

>	This election is barely over, and _already_ we're discussing
>who'll run 4 years from now.

Oh, probably Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: ralph@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (ralph.winslow)
Subject: Re: Have some respect
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:13:33 GMT

In <qikHuB3w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>llama@pooh.cc.utexas.edu (sine nomine) writes:
>> Edward J. Branley (elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us) wrote:
>>
>> : Danoe is history, and will most likely never hold another national
>> : office.
>> --
>> sine nomine | debbie martinson
>
>greatest deliberative body.'  However, I just can't see Danoe getting elected
>to anything ever again, not because he was veep, but because he's Dan.  After
>the revelations of just how stupid Our Boy is, he'll probably do better on the
>right-wing lecture circuit.
>
>|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|

Others have pointed out that Ronnie Rayguns was elected (gasp) and then
re-elected (Oh my God!!!).  But I think those facts pale beside the fact
that we'd seen Tricky Dick Nixon as a VP and elected him (words fail
utterly) and then, following Watergate, re-elected him!!!  Phineas T.
Barnum was absolutely dead bang!  Having lived through all that, I'd
been sick with worry from the NH primaries, until Nov. 3rd.

Ralph
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Bush eats it!
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:40:00 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:22:57 EST
>FROM:   Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
>
>In article <BxKLGu.Hqn@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (REAL
>LIFE?!?! HA!!) says:
>

[...]

>>>>Tax the churches.
>

Damn straight.

>>Surely you're not suggesting that churches are integral to the operation of
>>the U.S. government or the well-being of the people.  If I remember correctly,
>
>That's exactly what I'm saying.

Then some of us disagree.  There cannot be two opinions about this.

>
>>a document was published about  this roughly 200 years ago called the "Bill of
>>Rights."  At least, I've heard rumors to that effect.  In it, there is a
>>guarantee, I've been told, that the government will not deny the people the
>>right to worship whomever they choose, and another guarantee not to force
>>people to worship anybody or anything.
>
>Absolutely right.  Irrelevant to the topic, but correct.

Huh?  I thought it WAS the topic.  

>
>>May I just add here that the Church deserves to be taxed as much as any other
>>business?  It is one of the most successfully self-contained businesses the
>>world has ever known.  You see, first the Church gives out its only manu-
>>factured good at no charge to you, as much as you care to take.  The
>
>Churches are not businesses, by any sane definition.  Your tirade against
>religion is just opinion, and most people know better.  Mark my words, any
>candidate who announces an intention to tax churches will lose, big time.
>
>>manufactured good?  It goes under the trade name "Guilt (TM)".  Then, the
>>Church, after knowingly giving you the moral equivalent of toxic waste, serves
>>as a giant waste-disposal service, pretending to put the Guilt (TM) someplace
>>safe where it won't hurt anybody.

Nah.  Way too heavy.  Religion is a branch of the entertainment business.
Sing-a-long.  Dramatic monologue.  Production studios (Vatican, Mecca,
Jerusalem, etc.). Overpayed, undertalented stars (Robert Tilton, the Pope,
Pat Robertson).  Fund raisers.  Performance tours (Billy Graham, Sun Myung
Moon, Mahareesh Mahesh Yogi).  Magic acts.  Tragedy.  Musicals.  Period
plays.  Horror.  Really versatile. Not much humor, though.  

>
>Yeah, whatever.   Again, most people know better.
>

As the _Psychic Digest_ says, "It wouldn't be true if so many people
believed it!"

>>>>Now America has a fighting chance.

No special tax should fall on religions, other than those universally
taxed items such as power consumption, use of the
public roads, sales taxes, property taxes, and other tax burdens that
do not target them in any specific and limiting way.  To allow
religious groups to buy up all the taxable land with their taxfree
incomes forces communities dependent on propery taxes (for schools
or whatever) to raise taxes on the remaining taxable units.




-- 
jim tims 
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Right-Wing Token-Ring Network?
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:48:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.234756.624@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.133504.1875@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> sab@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>>I: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>>
>>          [logic and observations deleted]
>>
>>   Consider:
>>
>>   Kurt Ludwick and Robert Davis are the same poster.
>>   John Switzer and huang from Canada are the same poster.
>>   Both Switzers are the same poster.
>
>This post is certainly obscure, to say the least, but be aware that there are 
>at least three different Switzers posting on the net - two of whom have the 
>first name of John. Clever net users can take notice of the source hosts and 
>ping them to get the IP addresses; this along with the net maps will show 
>the uniqueness of all posters.

Pinging doesn't prove uniqueness, as one person can set up accounts in
many places.  Long distance charges may be steep, but, hey, what a
prank!

Actually, we have no proof that you're a person.  All those AI
projects throughout the country.  I wonder if Usenet would be a good
Turing Test?



In fiscal year 1991, the government agencies classified as secret a
total of 7,107,017 documents.  This marks the first time that the
total number of reported classification decisions in a year is a
palindrome.		-- 1991 Information Security Oversight Office
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: hg2001@mailserver.bgsu.edu (Heather)
Subject: Say bye bye!!
Followup-To: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Organization: Bowling Green U.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:21:50 GMT

Finally a Democrat in the white house!!  And finally we have a Vice Pres.
who can spell potatoe (Opps, I mean potato).

Heather
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: spencer@ais.org (Spencer PriceNash)
Subject: Re: Have some respect
Organization: UMCC
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 15:45:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.212557.9319@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <19NOV199214020078@utahep.uta.edu> sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer) writes:
>>   Some more historical trivia
>>3) ...as did Charles Evans Hughes, who ran unsuccessfully againt Wilson in 1914.
>>   (He was also the last presidential candidate with a beard.)
>
>Does Nixon's 5 o'clock shadow count?

That's it! Maybe Quayle should grow a beard!

I remember times when Nixon would come on television.  He'd sit there
behind a desk, the presidential seal behind him, and as he spoke,
reading from those typed sheets of paper, the camera would get closer
and closer, until his face would seemingly fill the screen.  His
facial hairs showed and there would always be sweat on his upper lip.
It was groteque.

Then the camera would fade back, signalling the end of his speech.
Thank goodness.  I once had nightmares about that face.

Nixon with a beard?  It might have solved some image problems.  Quayle
with a beard?  That would be quite interesting.
-- 
Spencer PriceNash   spencer@spencer.ann-arbor.mi.us   spencer@ais.org
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have
 a tremendous impact on history."  -- Quayle
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle