HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcb@derrida.postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Summary: Loving relationships
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:47:28 GMT
Organization: Postmodern Consulting, San Francisco, California USA

In the referenced article, phil@netcom.com writes:
> Or much of the Gay Pride Parade -- unless of course, your idea of
> the representation of (the ideals of) a loving relationship is
> Dikes [sic] on Bikes with one women "towing" another via chains on
> her pierced nipples ...

Yes, that *is* one of "(the ideals of) a loving relationship"... and so
may be a man and a woman married to each other and raising children,
and so may be two men in leather, and so may be a transvestite or
transsexual or other genderbent person and his/her lover of either sex,
and so may be a three-(or more-)some of any combination.  And so on.

An ideal loving relationship is an ideal loving relationship, and it
depends on the individuals involved and what they mean to each other,
and has nothing at all to do with what genitals they might have or how
they choose to play.  Why someone should try to claim that one
particular configuration is canonical and others are less ideal is beyond 
me.

And, BTW, Phil, it's "dyke". 

--
Michael C. Berch  
mcb@postmodern.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18456 alt.politics.elections:1000 misc.taxes:2288 alt.society.civil-liberty:3498
From: lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:34:44 GMT
Organization: Holos Software, Inc.

In article <rdippold.702719186@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:

>Okay, now how many people who are vaccinated are going to "catch it anyway,"
>and why do they need a tax?  It's a risk.  I realize that quite a few
>of the people out there on the road probably shouldn't be driving, but
>I take the risk anyhow.  For a "rare" sickness such as measles, you
>should be aware of the vector as well.

The "vector"?  Measles isn't spread by insects.  What are you talking about?

>>If you spread a disease to
>>somebody because you were negligent, you are responsible.

Great, so how does one assign guilt for spreading disease?  There's not
going to be a paper trail on infections.  Even with a virus that is
very difficult to transmit, such as HIV or hepatitis B, it's often
difficult or impossible to determine how the virus was spread.

>Sounds reasonable.  I don't think a tax on all those who don't get
>vaccinated but still don't spread the disease is warranted, however.
>They are not implicitly guilty.

You both are looking at this as an individual and not a society problem, but
that's not how vaccination works.  There is the concept of herd immunity:
a disease such as measles cannot build up to breeding levels if most
persons are immune.  The few persons who are not immune themselves are
protected by herd immunity: they won't come in contact with measles because
there aren't enough succeptible persons around.  Any small outbreak of
the disease dies off quickly for lack of suitable hosts.

A spetacular instance of this has been the erradication of smallpox.
Not everyone in the world was immunized, but enough persons were that
eventually the horrible virus died out.  (Note that not all diseases
can be so erradicated; smallpox could surrive only in human hosts.)

If enough persons opt out of vaccination, though, no herd immunity results,
and the disease is an ongoing problem.

You speak of measles as being "rare."  It's rare because of
vaccination.  It sure wasn't rare 30 years ago.

I sure don't agree that there should be a tax on those who don't get
vaccinated.  I emphatically disagree with the concept that the tax code
is the only tool for social engineering, controlling the environment,
and public health.  Vaccination should be mandatory.  (Requiring that
public school students be vaccinated is a form of making vaccination
mandatory.)  Those few persons who have religious objections to
vaccination or who can't be vaccinated for certain things due to
allergies or whatever will be largely protected by herd immunity.
This is now the case.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: c9e-am@danube.Berkeley.EDU (William F. Tell)
Subject: Re: Elections in the Mother Country ...
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 07:56:12 GMT

In article <ku9ti5INN74c@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>economy.
>
>A harbinger of things to come in the fall in this old colony? Is a Democrat ==
>Labour; Perot == Liberal; Bush == Conservative (no matter how laughable that
>sounds) equation a valid comparison? Let the debate/flames begin.
>

Perhaps.  The Tories have been in power since 1979, one year before Reagan
was elected.   They won again in 1982 or 1983 and Reagan was re-elected.
In 1987 they won again and Bush was elected President one year later.  
Now the Tories win again in 1992.

The last time Labour won was in 1974.  The last Democrat elected President
of the U.S. was Carter in 1976.  It seems that relatively recently, American
Presidential elections have followed the British ones, at least from a rough
ideological standpoint.  

William F. Tell

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17065 talk.politics.theory:1971 alt.individualism:2294
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:07:20 GMT
  <1992Apr6.084808.10698@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)


 >>     The Libertarian Party is America's third largest and fastest growing
 >>political party.
 >
 >Is it really the fastest growing?  Is it growing at all?  By what measure:
 >votes, money raised, TV and newspaper coverage, or what?  Please post the
 >relevant statistics or retract this claim.

Paying membership in California is now up 100% over a year ago.  In San
Mateo County, up 230%.

 >As someone once said, the Republican Party is
 >a big tent, so another sideshow or a few more clowns wouldn't hurt.

Or have any other effect.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization.  Was: College Was: Perot
Date: 11 Apr 92 04:28:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr10.221021.27686@infonode.ingr.com> jackr@thorodin.dazixco.ingr.com writes:
>I'm not going to argue the pros and cons of the previous arguments. But I would
>like you to ponder this quote from Tom Peters, author of "In Search of
>Excellence".
>
>From his column of 3/31/92, "Curb the drug war's fearful excesses.
>A federal warden says that if our prison population continues to grow at the
>current rate, half of us will be in the slammer by 2050. It sounds funny, but
>it's no joke. And our military has no business chasing coca planters in Latin
>America. The answer is clear: the politically incorrect L-word. Legalization of
>marijuana for starters."

WOW!  Anyone know where I can write Tom Peters?  E-mail would be fine.

  Thanks awfully,
            Patrick
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: What's wrong with America.
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:58:39 GMT

In article <NELSON.92Apr15224843@cheetah.clarkson.edu>  
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:

> But we are not happier.  That is because we have reached the
> saturation point for material goods.  We have gone "over the hump", to
> where the money earned to pay for yet another material good is paying
> for less and less pleasure and buying more and more environmental
> destruction.  (Again, note that this does not apply to the poor in
> America, just the middle class.)
> 
Look around the world and you will see the rape of the environment is worse in  
the poor countries than here.  The destruction and desertification of many  
areas can be directly laid to the poverty and overcrowding of the so called  
third world.  Industrialization has brought polution but technology is helping  
to clean the environment not destroy it.

--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The erudite National Review picks on Bill Clinton's daughter
Date: 16 Apr 1992 18:50:23 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <92107.125841MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

|> >
|> >National Review, like most opinion magazines, also has some humour in
|> >it. They make fun of all sorts of things. So what?
|> 
|> Let me get this straight. The National Review, a gigantic political
|> magazine, teases a twelve-year-old schoolgirl in print over her name, and
|> you don't see anything wrong whatsoever?

Sigh. NR was teasing Hilary (as they said, "Pillory Hilary") over her choice of
names. And no, I don't see anything wrong with that. Now, if they had criticized
Chelsea Clinton for something, I would see your point. 

|> 
|> Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have a fundamental difference in
|> world-views here. The word "yawning chasm" could be used in this context.

Does the phrase "sense of humor" strike a bell? No? I thought as much.

|> 
|> [Your blood pressure just went up.]       Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
|>  DISCLAIMER: Penn State cares about my money, not my opinions.
|>   "All my father wanted to do was make a toaster you could really set the
|>     darkness on -- and you perverted his work into those horrible machines!"

-srinivas
From: cummingc@CS.ColoState.EDU (christopher cummings)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Slick Willy and the terrible 22
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:57:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: yuma.1992Apr06.205717.64137
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

In article <167C1932B.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:

***mine***
>>state that seems to breed deficit spending??  I know I don't
>>want Willy doin the hand jive on my books.
***yours***
>I wonder if Mr. Cummings grasp of reality is always this skewed.
> 
>What in *HELL* do the bounced checks of two Arkansas congressmen have
>to do with Bill Clinton?
> 
>Jim McMaster

Jim, I was merely pointing out the fact that it seems the Dems
in recent years have flocked to the candidate that can say with
the most convincing false conviction ;-> that I'VE BALANCED x 
BUDGETS SO VOTE FOR ME....   Now, if we found out after Mike
left office in Taxachussetts that creative accounting was his
specialty,  and,  we already know that Slick Willy can't keep his
finger on his congressmen, (and don't tell me he doesn't have any
influence with them)  we can only guess at what evilness lurks
behind Willy's used-carsalesman-like face.


--
Chris Cummings
cummingc@beethoven.cs.colostate.edu
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Questions (Repeat)
Date: 15 Apr 1992 16:43:02 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <9204151603.AA08349@desci.wharton.upenn.edu>, chajakis19@DESCI.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU (Emmanuel Chajakis) writes:
|> 
|> Dear friends,
|> 
|> I am repeating questions I asked yesterday. I am particularly
|> interested in the first of them, because I know someone who
|> is a diabetes patient and will be very much affected by the
|> outcome of the vote. Could someone out there give me an answer 
|> to the following questions?
|> 
|> 1) What happened to the issue of President Bush's ban of 
|>    fetal tissue for the treatment of some diseases like 
|>    diabetes etc.? A bill was passed by both the Congress and 
|>    the House about using them, and it was vetoed by the President.
|>    What is the status of the veto? Has it been overturned?

1A: I don't believe that it has been vetoed as yet. The Bill passed the
Senate by a veto-proof majority. I am not sure if it has passed the House
and if it did, with what majority.
|> 
|> Emmanuel Chajakis,

-srinivas
From: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk ( **Michael**)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.environment,alt.activism,rec.nude
Subject: Re: Ozone hole farce? (was Re: Ozone problem burns Politically Correct)
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:46:10 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: The Greenies and the Ecofreaks Speak Out (unlimited)

I agree with what most other people have said in their follow-ups. NASA is not
bullshiting just to get money. (Did anybody see the farcial Channel 4 (UK) program
claiming that global warming was a similar "trick" to get more money for research?
fucking crap is all I can say)

anyhow, one point that (I think) has been missed is that the effects of ozone
depletion are probably much WORSE than we see now (the effect has been hidden by
something but it slips my tired mind exactly what it was now).

and just to reinforce; the volcanic eruption has had an effect on O3 (as in depleting
it) hence the major worries over N. hemisphere about the effects THIS SPRING/SUMMER.

all the best (and dont forget yer sunglasses and protective skin blocks)

Michael
bane@vortex.ma.man.ac.uk
From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The erudite National Review picks on Bill CLinton's daughter
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:47:51 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

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?
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Tree Hugger's Nightmare: Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Stew ...
 - - Have you ever tried looking at the stars through a squirrel? - - -
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18031 alt.society.civil-liberty:3418 alt.individualism:2426 misc.taxes:2235 alt.politics.elections:861
From: gmw0622@zeus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,misc.taxes,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Employee vs. Employer rights (was Re: What keeps me from being Lib.)
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:04:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: GrinchCo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr12.202507.8032@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes...
> 
 >History, in my opinion, is on the side of at least some limitations on
 >employer action and against the Libertarian philosophy. The LP offers
 >theoretical arguments about how employers who don't discriminate or
 >demand sexual favors will do better will than those who do. But there
 >are also theoretical and *historical* arguments that it was to
 >employers' (short term) advantage to keep, for example,
 >African-Americans working for lower wages. Any African-American who
 >refuses to work for less found him or herself unemployed and
 >blacklisted. Any employer who defected by offering equal pay for equal
 >work, found him or herself boycotted by the other employers.
 > 
 >- Carl
 >--

It's like this: if the majority of the populace is white racists anyway,  
there's no chance that the government is going to give minorities protection 
against discrimination,  quite the contrary,  they're going to 
institutionalize it.  The government may have done a little good with 
antidiscrimination laws,  but it has done a hell of a lot more harm with
laws that required discrimination.  Do you dispute this,  or merely think 
things are going to change in the future?

Mr. Grinch
From: trudel@dartagnan.rutgers.edu (Jonathan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Japan could be skirting $30 billon in U.S. taxes annually
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:39:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <54223@hydra.gatech.EDU> ph279sw@prism.gatech.EDU (FR SIGING WEI) writes:

> Why pick on Japan (IRS may have less people speak
> Japaness, how about English, to those countries like
> Britain or so).

The original poster mentioned Japan, but the report covered all
nations that presumably underreported their profits, including Japan,
the UK, and others.  The hearings were mentioned on CNN as well,
apparently PrimeTime decided not to cover the remainder of the IRS
findings.  

> By the way, does "prime time" people ever check what 
> say US company outside US do, as a comparison, whether
> it is the sin of the Japaness Co here in US, or just
> a common practice for everybody.

It's apparently a common thing, and the IRS isn't sure what to do
about it.  Given that there may not be any way to verify the numbers,
it will be a hard thing to prove.  If I remember correctly, the IRS
has based these numbers on reported profits of foreign companies
selling in the US.  Don't you find it suspicious that foreign
companies claim so little?  Why sell here if that's the case?
From: rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Union Dues or Taxes -- King George is Exactly Right!
Date: 16 Apr 92 06:42:50 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (James Woodyatt) writes:

>In article <1992Apr15.162536.987@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>|> 	You left out the fact that it was *non* union members forced to pay
>|> dues to unions who can now prevent the unions from using that money for
>|> political purposes.

>Not that you don't have a point, Brett, but there are those who would
>argue that individuals who choose to work for a company whose contract
>with the union says that all of its employees, regardless of union
>membership, must pay union dues, can vote with their feet and quit
>their jobs if they don't like what the union does with the money they
>collect.

As long as unions get special preference from government, they
shouldn't be too outraged to find out that they end up paying the
piper.   Otherwise I'd agree.
-- 
When it comes to humility, I'm the greatest! -- Bullwinkle Moose
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: ACLU dogmatism
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:16:08 GMT

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>Libertarians would argue that a public library shouldn't exist at all
>for that very reason.  I disagree, but I assume libertarians would agree
>with me on this point: *IF* we have a public library, it has to be PUBLIC.
>You don't get to arbitrarily exclude people because you don't like the
>way they look (or smell).  

I don't know how that would be viewed... that's sort of like asking a
Brit "Now suppose American football were far superior to football,"
because, yes, the library shouldn't be paid for by the government.
However I would probably agree on this.  It's bad enough that they're
taking money from those who don't use it to pay for it, for them to
start excluding people is even worse.

This is one reason why government funding of this sort of thing is
ridiculous.  You can't solve it without some arbitrary law which
forces government to discommode someone who isn't doing something
illegal either way.  I can just see the laws regarding just how bad
someone has to smell before he is "Criminally aromatic".
-- 
Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, 
and you would not have been informed.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18082 alt.drugs:7607
From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Posting from Sameer Parekh (Zane) at ddsw1
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:00:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: linus.1992Apr13.210030.23591
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <1992Apr10.043228.4854@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes:
>	Anyway, I'm going to be inducted next Wednesday, and I want to do
>something interesting to advance my agenda and display the lack of reality
>which NHS is.  Usually inductees are ot wear a flower the day of the
>induction.  I thought I would wear a hemp flower, but I fear that it would
>be too illegal and maybe expensive.  (I have no idea how expensive it is..)

Quite illegal.  The "flower" is the part people smoke.  ANd it's pretty
small, unless you get a big cluster of them, which would be expensive.

>study where it said something like people who drink 1 drink a day have a
>certain lesser disease rate of a certain type?  (It's probably due to these

No, alcohol actually helps get rid of fat deposits which cause hardening of
the arteries.  It also helps prevent tooth decay.  Most physicians will tell
you, though, that the negative effects outweigh the positive.

>]	I don't know how I'd express this.  My parents are bugging me to buy
>a suit + tie for the thing, but I was thinking I should wear a
>pro-hemp/marijuana anti-WoD t-shirt.  Anyone know of any good things I
>should write on the T-shirt?  (It must be seen.)  (I don't have time, so
>I'll probably go to the local t-shirt store and have the letters ironed on.)
>	Thanks.  Any other ideas completely different from this are welcome.

What is the message you want to get across?  Something along the lines of 
"I am living proof that drugs don't ruin your academic career"?  If so,
here's an idea.

You probably won't get access to a microphone, so what you do must be
visual.  Is the president going to give you a certificate?  If so, you could
roll it up into a giant joint, attach a giant roachclip to it, and take a 
fake toak off it before you walk away.  

The giant roachclip could be kept in your pocket until the ceremony (so
nobody will know what's coming) and worn on the lapel of your jacket
afterwards.

>to fears of violence, I will ask that friend running lights to shut off ALL

I wouldn't worry about it.  How many Drug Nazis would be bold enough to
attack you in front of the principal and everybody?

If you've been threatened in school for your anti-WoD beliefs, you should
definitely go to the administration about it.  They have the responsibility
of protecting you.  Even if you burn flags.  Or hemp.

Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"
Darryl Gates, George Bush's "ideal police officer", thinks Clarence Thomas, 
a former casual drug user, should have been shot long ago.
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17389 ca.politics:3375 ba.politics:2610 alt.politics.homosexuality:1853 soc.motss:19605