HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 11:46:45 GMT

In article <20310@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>I have absolutely no problem with "Gay rights".  I do have a problem with
>having a lifestyle shoved down our throats (sorry).  I think there was
>a mistake made with signs like that, but it's a reaction to the other
>side with their intolerance with people who don't agree with them.  What
>you do in the privacy of your own home is your business, when it becomes
>a public issue, it begs for an argument, from one side or the other.  
>

Please define "shoved down our throats".  Acceptance?  Recognition?  
Acknowledgment of our selves and our relationships?  Apparently, if
I'm gay I can only be gay in the bedroom - thus promoting the notion
that homosexuality _only_ has to do with sex - and I am "shoving it down
your throat" if I hold hands with my lover in public.  Or if I ask
for the same rights and privileges (with the same responsibilities) as
straight people.  It sounds like you have a serious problem with gay rights.
As for making my sexual orientation public requiring an argument:  would
you say that heterosexuals who put family pictures on their desk or talk
about their spouses "beg[s] for an argument"?  Are you suggesting
that gays and lesbians should keep their lives silent?  Try going
a week at work or school without talking about the person you love
and share your life with, try not mentioning people you think
are attractive.  _THEN_ talk to me.

 
>Hetrosexuals, as a rule, don't wear their sexual preference as a badge of
>honor, and when homosexuals do, it creates a conflict.  I have worked
>with and like folks from both persuasions, but dislike it when either
>type make an issue of their personal lifestyle.
>
See above paragraph.  Heterosexuals _constantly_ wear their sexual
preference on their sleeves.  But you do not consider it an "issue" when
a straight person talks about their spouse or partner - only if
a gay person does.  I suppose it's okay to let straight people get
married while denying that same basic freedom to gay people.  And that
when gay people demand the same rights they are somehow "making an issue"
of their "lifestyle."  Great logic.  As for wearing my sexual
orientation as a "badge of honor," _perhaps_ it would not be as necessary
if my life weren't _illegal_ in several states.  


======================================================================
"For I can see that in the midst of death, Life persists; in the
midst of untruth, Truth persists; in the midst of darkness, Light
persists."

"An eye for an eye will blind the world."
                                      Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

"I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it."
                                                             ME!

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org
Michael Lax, 12514 Esplanade St., #B, Austin, TX  78727-4409
512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: chrisf@csc.albany.edu (Slasher)
Subject: Re: sex-ed
Organization: State University of New York at Albany
	<6312@transfer.stratus.com> <1992Sep11.185121.799@midway.uchicago.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 05:38:21 GMT
X-Posted-From: thor.albany.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep11.185121.799@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:

>	   I would like to request that only people with children
>   enrolled in U.S. public schools, who are near the age at which
>   theyt are expected to study sex-ed, should publish.
>	   Everyone else has at best their own agenda.
>	   So post if you have kids of age in public school in the U.S.

>				   J. Wagner

How about those of us with a younger sister or brother?  My sister is now
11 and attending a public school.  My parents haven't yet hit her with the
sex ed talk, but she'll get it in about two years.  From my point of view,
she won't NEED sex ed from school, but I can't find a reason to object to
it; it's kinda like a check to make sure if my parents miss something 
important, she'll still end up hearing it.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Clinton confuses quail
Organization: Purdue University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:08:32 GMT

OK, let me get this straight, Clinton said cruise missles fly down chimneys,
and Danny-poo said that it was actually Santa Clause that did that, right?









Larry J




-- 
#L.W. Jewell Moderator at the Veterans Information Site (veteran@cc.purdue.edu)#
#& WWII-L Listowner: "Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange,#
#sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all   #
#phases of life." "Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41  #
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5365 talk.politics.misc:45387 alt.rush-limbaugh:4799 alt.politics.bush:5082 alt.politics.elections:13099
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: Gore's Definition of Pollution
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 19:48:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu: 

>     We all know of Sen. Gore's care and concern for the ecological
>welfare of the planet.  On pg. 247 of his book, "Earth in the Balance,"
>he gives us an indication of what he considers as 'pollution.'
>
>     "Indeed, the first instance of 'pollution' in the Bible
>     occurs when Cain slays Abel and his blood falls on the
>     ground, rendering it fallow. ... God then tells Cain that
>     his brother's blood has defiled the ground and that as a
>     result, 'no longer will it yield crops for you, even if
>     you toil on it forever!'"
>
>Are these words typical of a mainstream, moderate, centrist politician?
>Moreover, is there anyone out there in NETland that agrees with Gore's
>statement?  I would be interested in hearing.

	Actually, his statement is perfectly accurate.

	That IS the first instance of pollution in the Bible, is it not?

	He is NOT however stating that it is either true or that it
represents the first instance of pollution among humans!

>     On the lighter side, there is some benefit gained by this definition
>of pollution.  Do you remember how the only way to convict Al Capone
>was via the Internal Revenue Service?  If Gore is Vice-President, maybe
>the Environmental Protection Agency will be able (or should I spell it
>Abel) to convict murderers who slip through the courts on charges of
>toxic-waste dumping.
>
	I'd rather have a Vice President who believed that the Bible
contained injunctions against pollution than a President who publicly stated
that Atheists are not citizens or patriots! The former will lead to an
environmental cleanup. The latter could lead to a witch hunt!



-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\  Reliable and affordable public access to 
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \  telecommunications services is the 
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  first step toward a global community.
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  Send Email for files on GEnie and Netcom.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Sep9.182041.13703@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
	<2AAE62CF.11063@news.service.uci.edu>
	<1992Sep9.215511.18804@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:41:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.215511.18804@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

   In article <2AAE62CF.11063@news.service.uci.edu>, harvey@cafws1.eng.uci.edu (Harvey Chen) writes:
   > 

   > >Oh yeah, I always trust my local beer-swizzling red-necks with fifth
   > >grade educations to give me their in-depth political commentary :-).
   > >
   > >Seiously though... this is just another irrelevancy in a long string of
   >    ^^^
   >      Talk about fifth grade educations....please....:)
   > 
   > >irrelevancies being bandied about. It just proves that Bush can fool
   > >some of the people most of the time.
   > >
   > >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
   > 
   > 

   Oh, I'm so sorry I didn't run my post through a spell checker. I was a very
   naughty boy and the net.spelling.police should take away my license.
   :-/

   Dr. Norman J. LaFave

Well, Dr. you were the one who banged somebody else for not using his
spelling cheker.  Since you're a Dr. I would think your spelling chequer
would be between your ears.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4569 talk.politics.misc:44381 alt.rush-limbaugh:4432 alt.politics.bush:4502 alt.politics.elections:12691
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 9 Sep 1992 18:20:41 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <1992Sep9.164638.23642@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
> 
> 
> My girlfriend saw this one on tv news.  I was suprised the local 
> station would report this one, rather than ignoring it as I would 
> have expected them to.
> 
> Clinton this weekend (sept 5-6) went to a rally in South Carolina.
> He was booed so hard and loud by a majority of the huge crowd that 
> he couldn't be heard at all.  The best part was the plane:  Overhead
> flew an airplane towing this banner:  "We don't want a draft dodger
> for president!".
> 
> The plane was lovely.  I wish she had recorded it on the vcr.  As
> I said, I am suprised that the tv news station here chose to cover it.
> 
> I have yet to see any mention of this wonderful event in our local
> paper, (which runs daily anti-Bush editorial cartoons).   I plan to
> go to the library and see which papers do cover the event, but I 
> imagine there are not many.  If the same thing had happened to Bush,
> you can bet it would be in every paper and tv news show.
> 
> How many of you saw this?  What did you think?  How many of you didn't
> know about this because your TV station or newspaper chose to deny you
> this knowledge?
> 
> Jim Del Vecchio
> 
> 

Oh yeah, I always trust my local beer-swizzling red-necks with fifth
grade educations to give me their in-depth political commentary :-).

Seiously though... this is just another irrelevancy in a long string of
irrelevancies being bandied about. It just proves that Bush can fool
some of the people most of the time.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5540 alt.politics.bush:5215 alt.politics.elections:13194
From: PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 04:58:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.204654.17984@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:

>In article <1992Sep11.151548.2253@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (r. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>|> So I called the
>|> people at Darlington Red-necks... Big deal. a.) It was a joke, b.) I was
>|> making a point about in-bred biases being easy to manipulate, c.)
>|> nobody else seems to have taken offense to it, d.) the comment had nothing t
>|> do with my degree.
>
>When you go around calling a whole class of people rednecks, stupid and too laz to
>get a clue and then sign off as Dr. it's obvious you are being an intellectual
>snob.  I, for one,  took offense.  Probably many others.
>
>A simple test for Dr. LaFave.  Whenever you want to talk about a class of peopl
>test whether if those remarks were made about a class of people the liberals
>want to protect (e.g. aboriginal Americans or blacks) you would be offended.  Ad also
>test for truth.  I assert your remarks failed _BOTH_ tests and were offensive.
>--
>Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com
>
>It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowel
Okay, great.  But first check your own posts for rationality and syntax.
That is, "whether if" you can.

                     Tom G.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4300 alt.politics.bush:4301
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: A Dearth of Jobs
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 16:28:44 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

> In article <1992Sep7.161403.6417@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.
> > In article <1992Sep7.103517.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisv
> >>In article <1992Sep7.031815.25831@athena.mit.edu>, bowler@athena.mit.edu (B
> >>>
> >>> I don't think that anyone else could have done any better.  Now, on the
> >>> other hand, a room full of monkeys could have done better than George.
> >>>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>> -bert
> >>
> >>     Are you referring to Congress with that 'room full of monkeys'
> >>quip?  The problem is Bush has to try to work with a room full of
> >>monkeys (Congress), and the only power he has over them is the veto,
> >>i.e. refusing them bananas.
> >>
> >
> > Perhaps Sununu, Darman, et al., would qualify as the proverbial
>           ^^^^^^
> > "room full of monkeys".
> >
>      NEWS FLASH.....NEWS FLASH.....NEWS FLASH.....NEWS FLASH.....
> John Sununu is no longer Chief of Staff!  I guess news travels slowly
> to some parts of the country-- unless you're waiting for the story
> to appear on MTV Music News (the network that preps 18 to 25 year-old
> minds for the real liberal media).   :-)

True, Sununu is no longer Chief of Staff, but he was around for most of the
damage the Bush administration has caused.  Besides, calling that bunch that
worked for Skinner a 'room full of monkeys' isn't fair to the monkeys.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5312 talk.politics.misc:45328 alt.politics.bush:5037 alt.flame:12827
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.flame
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 14 Sep 1992 18:25:28 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <9093@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> 
> In <BuFFqz.AKw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
> 
> >The good doctor's comment was followed by a :) -- that's a SMILEY
> >for those of you who fall in the "humor challenged" department.  It 
> >was a JOKE!  A FUNNY!  An attempt at HUMOR!
> 
> It must have been a very bad attempt, because no one seems to have gotten
> it.  By the way, many people can be affended by humor.  Just ask
> Andrew Dice Clay.
> 
> -- 
> --Mark
> My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
> 
> 

Actually, most people who have sent me mail knew it was a joke. Only
the terminally-anal retentive and the PC folks seem to have missed it.

However, the point I was trying to make in that posting is still valid.
As I have said in a recent posting, go talk to people in most small southern
towns and find out what conditions they live in. Then ask them what issues
they deem important. I think the answers will amaze you. I know because I
grew up in a small southern town and it always amazed me how easy it was for
politicians to step all over them using a smokescreen of religion, patriotism,
and traditional values.

Norman(for the anti-intellectual)

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: SC flamefest
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:03:00 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <9121@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.214958.696@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>MW:I didn't grow up with them, but then again some of my best friends are
>MW:rednecks. ;^)
>
>MW:I am sorry you feel this way.  Sounds like you need to get some professional
>MW:help to get rid of these feelings of hostility.
> 
>DOC:Sounds like you need to go home and have your mother reteach you some manners.
>DOC:If I sound hostile, it is because the irresponsible voting of this
>DOC:portion of the electorate does affect the rest of our lives.

   What is "irresponsible voting"?  Is it just voting that disagrees with 
   your views?   There are many different bases for deciding who to vote
   for - who is to say which is the most legitimate one?   Should I vote
   based on what's in my perceived best interest or that of my district, 
   or that of the country, etc?   


---peter

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4199 alt.politics.bush:4217
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Sick to death
Date: 6 Sep 1992 17:08:40 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep4.155744.29434@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:

>Congress has shown that regardless of revenue they will spend more.

Please explain, then, why the deficit throughout the Reagan Bush years
has been almost exactly what was in the President's budget proposal,
and in some years the Congresionally-approved budget had a smaller
deficit.

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
From: kschwab@nyx.cs.du.edu (Kerry Schwab)
Subject: Re: "I can even forgive Bush for Dan Quayle, but not for this."
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa, na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 23:45:36 GMT

In <BuBF51.7CJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu> Michael Adams writes:
[some deleted for clarity]
>
>Smartbombs, not cruise missles, not Patriots, were flying down chimneys and
>through doors.  Maybe candidates on both sides could try a little harder
>to get their facts straight?
>

I missed the beginning of this thread. (and the news also)
If they were talking about Desert Shield/Storm there *were* cruise
missiles going through door and windows. ( Navy Tomahawks )

They are guided by cameras and launched from missile cruisers.
I still have some video of it. It would be quite a trick to get them
to go down a chimney, however.
 
>--
>Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"C'mon boys, don't bother me.
>Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 I'm debating Danny Quayle.
>Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 The boy's retarded."
>Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			-- Sen. Birch Bayh
>UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     

--
Kerry Schwab
kschwab@nyx.cs.du.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4522 alt.rush-limbaugh:4409
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:44:58 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

In article <1992Sep9.022339.13295@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

	[Clinton thinks up a plan vs. Clinton adopts a plan]

|> Do you honestly see no difference here?  If Bush did something like
|> this, you would be on it like stink on shit.  Face it.  You have a
|> double standard.

	What are you talking about? Bush *does* do this, as do all politions
who are worth anything at all. Bush isn't an economist, and I would
expect him to get his ideas from someone who specializes in that field.
To do otherwise would require that the president be an expert in a dozen
different fields.

	Clinton seems to have an underlying vision about the way that
government should work, and he has found an economic plan that fits with
his vision. Who cares who authored it. Reagan had an underlying vision,
too, and reaganomics originated in an economic think tank somewhere. Bush, 
in contrast, doesn't seem to have any convictions at all: he goes with 
whatever wind happens to be blowing at the moment. Now *thats* a problem.

	Before 1980: Pro choice		After 1980: Pro life
	Before 1980: voodoo economics	After 1980: trickle down forever
	Before 1980: Condoms for everyone After 1980: sex is a bad thing

the list goes on. It's one thing to adopt a plan because it fits your way
of thinking, its another to adopt a plan because it gets you the job.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:55:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.223806.19712@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> tom@arthur.jsc.nasa.gov (Tom Robinson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.164233.12599@eng.ufl.edu>, jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes:
>> (Argument asserting Clinton's health care plan would trigger depression
>>  deleted for brevity.)
>>
>>   When has the government ever done something efficient?
>>
>>   NEVER!!!!
>>
>
>I think you mean _efficiently_.  The word _efficient_ is an adjective and,
>thus, can only modify a noun or a pronoun.  Certainly you did not mean for
>_efficient_ to modify _government_ (a noun) or _something_ (a pronoun), did
>you?  The word _efficiently_ is an adverb and, thus, can only modify a verb,
>an adjective, or another adverb.  Did you not intend for your modifier to
>apply to the verb _has_done_?  Here's what your sentence would look like if
>you has used the proper part of speech:
>
>When has the government ever done something efficiently?
>

You see, Tom, the problem with spelling/grammar flames is that they can always
be returned. "Something" can be used as a noun, and so "efficient", an
adjective, could very reasonably be used with it. "Something efficient" is
as valid as "done efficiently."

Patronizing asshole that you are, Tom, you failed to notice that you also
reinforced the original question:

When HAS the government ever done something efficient?

The Wisp. [I just couldn't resist it...]
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)