HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:37:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.022917.21108@vlsi.polymtl.ca> d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens) writes:
}James Meritt (m23364@mwunix) wrote:
}: d40937@pascal (Jean Yves Desbiens) writes:
}: }With the demise of communism and the now non-existent support
}: }of Russia to its former ally, what is the reason, if any,
}: }behind the continuing embargo of Cuba. The Cuban's
}: }should be flourishing if not for this uncalled for economic 
}: }drain on their country.
}: 
}: Excuse me.  Could you please enlighten me - what nations, other than
}: the US of A, are prevented from large-scale economic dealings with Cuba?
}
}Ho god, I hope you have nothing to do with economy because this would
}be an admission of a blissful ignorance of the subject. The US is CLOSE

Asking you if you are really as ignorant as you appear is an admision
of my status?  Perhaps.  I wonder if you are as big a fool as you appear.

}to Cuba and is the BIGGEST market in the world; how would Canada do
}if the US market was closed to it, it would be a catastrophy.

Very good.  Now that you've acknowledged that the US is ONLY influenced
by this, and since you seem to think that the US is SO important, why do
you think that the US of A should be forced to deal with Cuba?

}Cuba is probably the most appealing
}tourist destination in america (great beaches, wildlife, history, culture,
}and cheap ) but it is cut off from its main potential client. Think about

Right.  It must be wonderful.  That is why all those people are trying to
get away from it.  And yes, I've been there.

}Think about
}it a bit, no other countries embargo can have an influence even remotely 
}close to the one done by the US. 

Why don't you just try a simple thing called "thinking", maybe accompanied
by a unprejududicial "look around"?  You seem to hold the opinions of the
mass media and your private scenarios in higher regard than what you
can see and hear for yourself.
From: rspence@mpd.tandem.com (Russell Spence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: US Should NOT Disarm Somalis
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:16:34 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <1992Dec17.235109.1971@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>There has been a lot of talk lately about forcibly disarming the people
>of Somolia.

	I actually, I don't think they are talking about taking individual
	AK-47's from people as much as removing the hundreds of laser-guided
	TOW missiles that we sold them in the 70's :-(.

-- 
Russell Spence                                               Austin, Texas

"Foot-impelled bi-directional verticle transport asset"
				- staircase, as defined by the U.S. Army
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65218 alt.current-events.somalia:729
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: 23 Dec 92 13:51:48 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Dec23.001110.4595@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
}In article <1992Dec22.134026.3971@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>In article <1992Dec22.003746.17871@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
}>}I certainly don't object to troops firing on a suspicious vehicle.  In
}>}a war zone, they should be able to take measures to defend themselves
}>}(including pre-emptive action, if the political context warrents it).
}>}That the Pentagon decided to fudge the press-release, however, doesn't
}>}sit well with me.
}>
}>Then perhaps you recall what might have been termed "fog of war"?
}>(Not greatest terminology, but it might stick)  Might it be the case
}>that what they said WAS what they believed to be the truth, and that there
}>was no (deliberate) misinformation?
}
}OK, this is plausible.  Though past action doesn't necessarily
}implicate present activities, the relationship between the military
}and the press (and through that, the military and the public) has left
}some of us, well, itchy.

And what conclusion would you draw from the covered amphibious landing.
Is that consistent behaviour, in your opinion?

}Certainly, the Pentagon's sources of
}intelligence are at least as fast as Ted Turner's,

Not only would I not bet on that, but I'd be willing to bet against that.

CNN has this tendency to release "it is rumored that" on the fly, but military
intelligence doesn't run that way.  Not to mention the minor detail that live
coverage of a reporter is several layers shorter than someone reading a 
release prepared by someone prepared by someone ...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:30:43 GMT

In article <13748@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <C02758.AK9@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer) writes:
># Surely you have a better reason for hating homosexuals than the
># above.
>
>Hate?  No.  I just don't think the government should tell consenting
>adults what they can do in private.

Then what is your problem with homosexuals?

-- 
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65922 alt.politics.bush:15296 alt.politics.clinton:19422 tx.politics:8079
From: crowder@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mark Crowder)
Subject: Re: Space program necessary
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:02:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.085446.11313@fcom.cc.utah.edu> freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.164657.9526@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:
>|> 
>|> In article <17DEC199215301538@zeus.tamu.edu>, srf6200@zeus.tamu.edu (Steven
>|> Rush Fennell) writes...
>|> 
>|> >> 	Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
>|> >>	for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
>|> >>	program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
>|> >>	pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.
>|> 
>|> One of the things that most people don't think about are the spinoffs produced
>|> by the space program as things which were produced in getting us there in the
>|> first place.
>|> 
>|> {stuff deleted}|> 
>|> Freeze drying.
>|> Teflon.
>|> Many, many, many variations of plastics.
>|> Building materials.
>|> Manufacturing methods for purer elements.

   [stuff deleted]
>|> 
>|> Regards,
>|> Steve.
>
>   I agree with much of what you say... but it begs the question "How much more
>might we have created if those funds had originally been allocated for a more
>practical purpose?"    The discovery of teflon was largely an accident.   
>Freeze drying may have come out of other, more practical research.  Methods
>of producing plastics are developed in many research settings.   Your argument
>boils down to "the end justifies the means".  I claim that other means might have
>been more efficient.

  The simple reality is that those funds would never have been allocated
for "... a more practical purpose".  The taxpayers would never have
stood for spending that kind of money for anything on the list above.
They were buying a dream -- a dream that captured the entire nation.
People need dreams.  I do.  Don't you?

Mark Crowder  "I'm sorry my karma ran over your dogma"  crowder@spdc.ti.com 
Dallas, Tx                                          Texas Instruments, Inc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:01:55 GMT

In article <C00z4x.8Ln@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>Jay Denebeim P025 (denebeim@brtph254.bnr.ca) wrote:
>: In article <1992Dec17.172656.27110@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>: > 	Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
>: >	for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
>: >	program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
>: >	pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.
>: 
>: Yes I can.  How about these for instance:
>:
>
>NOT quite as rosey as you make it out to be...

[mike's anti-space program stuff deleted with the rest]

Put it in a historical context:

The Portugese were among the first explorers during the age of discovery
and yet they pulled back.  What has subsequently happened to their potential?
Have they not been in decline since that time?  Space is the next frontier
and if we (the US) do not actively compete in that arena we will likely be
left behind much like Portugal.  Britain ruled the waves and their culture
was successful.

Also, there will be poor always.  I see no reason why we must subordinate our
need to achieve human excellence or our scientific curiousity to the plight
of the poor.  First of all, utopianism is unrealistic (curing poverty) and,
secondly, we have a right (and a duty to our children) to make our society
succede.

Mike Best
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65908 misc.legal:21909
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:11:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.134026.3971@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.003746.17871@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>}I certainly don't object to troops firing on a suspicious vehicle.  In
>}a war zone, they should be able to take measures to defend themselves
>}(including pre-emptive action, if the political context warrents it).
>}That the Pentagon decided to fudge the press-release, however, doesn't
>}sit well with me.
>
>Then perhaps you recall what might have been termed "fog of war"?
>(Not greatest terminology, but it might stick)  Might it be the case
>that what they said WAS what they believed to be the truth, and that there
>was no (deliberate) misinformation?

OK, this is plausible.  Though past action doesn't necessarily
implicate present activities, the relationship between the military
and the press (and through that, the military and the public) has left
some of us, well, itchy.  Actually, one way to check this possiblity
may be took look at CNN/AP press releases at the time, and how long
the military kept to its story.  Certainly, the Pentagon's sources of
intelligence are at least as fast as Ted Turner's, and, if the
Pentagon's press secretary was being honest with the public (which he
hasn't in the past), the "fog of war" would have been cleared quickly.



--
"What does not kill me only makes me stronger, right?"
	"Ooooh, no. You're weak as a kitten!"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Department of Energy nominee
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 21:19:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.193551.25763@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}James Meritt writes:
}#Incorrect.  I have, through discussion, managed to get you to state my initial
}#viewpoint.
}
}err, what? This thread started when you complained that Clinton
}appointed someone unqualified to be in charge of the DoE, because
}Clinton's appointee didn't have experiance with nuclear weapons. 

Not quite.  I stated that the candidate appeared to be chosen for reasons
other than expertise in the position in which she was selected.  And you
have managed to say such yourself.  See?

}#Neither your,
}#nor my, opinion counts.
}
}Gee, and I thought that the USA was a democracy. Silly me.

For FUTURE events, not what has already happened.  You may notice, for
instance, that what you wish a star did (Astronomy department, right?)
doesn't seem to influence the light in transit a whole lot...

}#I suggest that you check again.  I believe that you are incorrect.  
}
}If the DoD isn't in charge of purchacing battleships, who is? (or
}substitute "destroyers" if that makes you feel happy.)

Is this suppose to be a topic change?

}#Is this suppose to be a demonstration of your understnding of the Department
}#of Energy and Department of Defense?
}
}It is a bit of rhetoric, but Reagan basically gutted the DoE of most
}non-nuke activities. I'd like to see it return to something non
}defense department related. Let the DoD take care of it self.

Ah, I see.  What you wish, not what is or even what you think is.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Macroeconomics 101
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 04:20:19 GMT
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 <1992Dec19.072841.8275@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>The Republicans are saying "I told you so" about the recent
>uptick in the economy. They STILL don't get it: the reason
>the economy is getting better is because they've been driven
>from office, and their loss is everyone else's gain.

Dude, you really are an idiot.  The uptick in the economy happened
before the election.  The numbers are hard to calculate and there is a
lag time.  The numbers we are hearing today are from up to a year ago.
For example, they just determined that the recession ended a year ago.
The numbers weren't in to confirm it until last week.

Needless to say, these rather elementary facts that you are ignorant
of render the rest of your analysis totally worthless.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 31 Dec 92 22:05:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <Dec.30.09.43.38.1992.9955@romulus.rutgers.edu>,
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) wrote:
> 
> In article <1hqhsbINN3n6@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
> 
> > Theodore A. Kaldis:
> >> Mike Polen:
> 
> >>> Ollie North was a criminal.
> 
> >> Not for his part in the Iran-Contra deal.  His conviction has been
> >> overturned.
> 
> > He is still a criminal.  The fact that he was acting in the interest
> > of those who get to rule on his guilt does not mitigate that fact
> > that he indeed broke the law, violated the public trust, and stole
> > money (even if for others).
> 
> Nope.  His conviction was overturned in a court of law.  The judicial
> system ruled on the question concerning his guilt or innocence, not
> the executive.  The courts have ruled that Ollie is no criminal.

'Scuse me, but the courts have made no such ruling.  They have ruled that
he cannot be *convicted* because of a legal technicality involving
admissibility of evidence, and he cannot be *punished* under the law.

Kaldisian Conservatives and other cryptofascists often wail and moan most
grievously when this happens in the case of some ordinary cutpurse, and
claim that it's a breakdown of criminal justice caused by "liberals," i.e.
civil libertarians.  "Coddling criminals," they call it.  Civil
libertarians reply, just as they do in this case, that the law must be
applied consistently even if it means that occasionally a criminal goes
free.  Which is what happened here.

For the record is utterly clear:  Oliver North violated numerous laws,
wilfully and knowingly.  He is, as a matter of plain and unvarnished fact,
a criminal, i.e. someone who has commited a crime.  He just isn't a
*convict*, unfortunately.

> Moreover, he did not "steal" money, nor was this ever part of the
> allegations against him.  Nor did he violate public trust -- he upheld
> it much better than virtually all of his detractors.

He certainly misappropriated funds, though not into his own pocket.  And he
certainly trampled and spat upon his oath to uphold the Constitution of the
United States -- I'd call that a violation of public trust.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Date: 29 Dec 92 02:29:17 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

James Meritt (m23364@mwunix) wrote:
: d40937@pascal (Jean Yves Desbiens) writes:
: }With the demise of communism and the now non-existent support
: }of Russia to its former ally, what is the reason, if any,
: }behind the continuing embargo of Cuba. The Cuban's
: }should be flourishing if not for this uncalled for economic 
: }drain on their country.
: 
: Excuse me.  Could you please enlighten me - what nations, other than
: the US of A, are prevented from large-scale economic dealings with Cuba?

Ho god, I hope you have nothing to do with economy because this would
be an admission of a blissful ignorance of the subject. The US is CLOSE
to Cuba and is the BIGGEST market in the world; how would Canada do
if the US market was closed to it, it would be a catastrophy.
How can you compete on prices when you have to ship your goods accross
the world to be able to sell them. Cuba is probably the most appealing
tourist destination in america (great beaches, wildlife, history, culture,
and cheap ) but it is cut off from its main potential client. Think about
it a bit, no other countries embargo can have an influence even remotely 
close to the one done by the US. 

--
SEIZE THE DAY, MAKE YOUR LIFE EXTRAORDINARY .  "Dead Poets Society"

Jean-Yves Desbiens                  | d40937@info.polymtl.ca
Etudiant en genie informatique      | 
Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal Can | To indeed be a god ...,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 17:54:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.160711.1310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.203932.14230@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>>>	1.  No matter how you stack the deck, it's deviant.
>>>
>>>    I say it isn't.  You say it is.  I say mind your own business.
>>
>>	Look up the word, get back to me.  Homosexuality is deviant,
>>	it fill all of the criteria.
>
>    Oh; I see.  An "exact definition" person.  You wouldn't be an undergrad
>psych major, would you?
>    OK; I'll give you that it's deviant if deviant = not in the majority.
>What's wrong with that?


	Howard's beginning to learn English.  Send me your address and
	I'll mail you a dictionary to help you along.


>>	Not true (to the first part).  For the second, if homosexuality
>>	is learned, they are a danger to learners (children).
>
>    Homosexuality is not learned by kids from adults.  Prove otherwise.


	Prove your assertion.  I cannot prove a negative.


>>	Then you don't understand the meaning of the word "behavioral".  It's
>>	not a semantic issue, it's an ignorance one.  Read up.
>
>    Now I'm sure you're a psych major.  Your prof must be proud.


	Sorry, no.  I'm not.  Just someone who like to be familiar with
	what he is speaking of before he makes a bunch of moronic statements
	that are easily shown to be incorrect.  (see: your own messages about
	"behavioral")

-- 
	Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.

         ---  boycott == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
		   	     Pain teaches.   <for mailing and other info, .plan>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65768 alt.sex:40548
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:34:51 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Dec29.143017.17639@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> In article <13721@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #Because they won't exclude child molestation advocacy groups from
# #their parades.
# 
# So spake the great libertarian. Ever hear of free speach? Or do you
# only beleive in free speach for those you agree with?

I believe that if Nazis want to march they are welcome to do so, but
I won't lend them legitimacy by marching with them.  Mr. Hennessy,
of course, believes that if he organizes a parade, he MUST allow the
Nazis to march with him.

# #There are a number of surveys that show that only a tiny percentage
# #of people EVER have sex with a member of the same sex. 
# 
# Well, that raises the issue of what tiny is, and if it makes a
# difference if it is tiny or half, but the basic claim of your sentence
# is wrong. The surveys simply give the number who ADMIT to having sex
# with a member of the same sex, which is certainly LOWER than the
# number who do have sex with members of the same sex. Or is that
# concept too hard for you to grasp?
# 
# -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia

I see.  All the surveys show a certain number, so everyone is lying
(and with remarkable consistency), but Mr. Hennessy knows what the
REAL truth is.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Bush CAN pardon himself
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:40:27 GMT

New York Times today notes that Bush CAN legally pardon himself,
he just can't exempt himself from impeachment.

Similarly, it appears that Walsh never made any LEGALLY BINDING
requests for information from Bush, which would mean that Bush
has probably won the battle (though he lost the election, and
his name is significantly tarnished, and will probably be moreso
after Walsh writes his final report).

-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65758 misc.legal:21845