HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Subject: Printed refs vs. 'I heard it on...'
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:30:46 GMT

This whole discussion about documentation of postings seems a little
silly. Sure, it's important not to spread misinformation (or
disinformation), but Usenet/Internet is a purely informal network for
discussion, not a journal for publication. If you think somebody is
propagating false information, you can always kill their postings,
correct them, or ask them for more information in E-mail.

What's more subtle about this argument is the suggestion that those
who don't have "hard documentation" for their statements should not
even post. This is *not* a professional forum.

Without documentation of any kind, I propose that those people who
spend a lot of time footnoting/referencing in their Usenet postings
are spending *way* too much time on the net.
-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
# "Snow Goons are bad news." - Calvin  |                                    #
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:09:24 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21455@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Sep2.184440.13142@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Why, he does it because he's such a flaming asshole that he can't help
>>it.  I'd have thought that he'd have solidly demonstrated that by now
>>(my feed has been messed up since last week, so I don't know what I
>>missed -- but I doubt if JFH had anything important to say).

>Now, Fred, you make me sound like some kind of saint.  Please, I only
>do this to show you how much I =like= you.

>Right now, I'd =like= you to provide some support for your economic and
>abortion "facts" that you keep presenting.

>>Check his information closely.  It tends to be, uh, somewhat
>>selective. 

>As opposed to yours, which tends to be, uh, somewhat non-existent ...

I've told you where to look.  So go look.

Of course, since I know you don't want to go look and have to actually
think, I'll just stick in future with telling you where to go,
instead.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Republican Candidates
Date: 29 Aug 92 06:03:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug23.214821.8310@unixland.natick.ma.us>, Bill Cramer writes:

> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> : The S&L debacle was caused by the repeal of many of the Real 
> : Estate tax advantages.  The liberal Democrats who control
> : Congress were mad at the Real Estate industry (because 
> : they were making profits.) So, they repealed the tax advantages.  
> : This caused the rapid crash of the grossly overinflated Real 
> : Estate prices.  This, in turn, caused the failure of many S&Ls
> : which had loaned large amounts of money to people buying Real 
> : Estate.  These loans went bad, and many S&Ls failed.
> 
> This message echoes the words I've been hearing over and over
> (for the past week in particular).  The liberal democrats in 
> Congress do this, do that -- my god, if the branch is able to
> do so damn much and the president is able to do so damn little,
> then why the heck is George running for president?  If the 
> Congress is as powerful as he claims it is, then why doesn't
> he run for the House, become speaker or minority leader and 
> really get things done?

Maybe because you need 217 other Representatives to elect you to the speakership?
Minority leader doesn't have much power - except over his own party.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4707 alt.politics.clinton:3684
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:48:28 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <17tv1dINN9pm@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>This "argument" is as impossible to refute as "The Chicago Cubs would
>have won the World Series if a Democrat had been President", but in view
>of the fact that Jimmy Carter's deficits weregenerally much LOWER than
>Reagan's and Bush's, could you explain again slowly why your claim is
>plausible in the least?

Keeping in mind that Carter's low deficits were purchased with massive
tax revenue increases caused by bracket creep.  They were also paid for
by Reagan years later when Reagan decided to rebuild the military after
it was laid to waste by the anti-Vietnam crowd.

It is important to figure out where all of the blame lies when blame
shifting.  You must recall that there was a general funk over this
country during much of the 70's.  Getting out of that funk took a lot
of money - $1T in military to rebuild our defenses, and $2T in social
welfare to pay off the voters ...

>I am still looking forward to your list of where to cut spending and by
>how much. Incidentally, you do recall that the GOP had control of the
>Senate for 6 of those high-spending years and a working majority in the
>House (counting conservative Democrats) for some of that, don't you?

Everywheres and by as much as possible.

That was, after all, the original promise of Reaganomics - get the
government out of the peoples hair, off their backs, and out of their
pockets.

Note that this is also the promise of Libertarians ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: cramer@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Cramer)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix  (508) 655-3848
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:40:30 GMT

jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
: [ horray/hiss for reagonomics omitted ]
: 
: Wrong.  Without the tax cuts, the deficit would have been MUCH bigger!  
: The economic boom INCREASED tax revenues in spite of the lower 
: rates.  Unfortunately for us taxpayers, Congress spent much more 
: than the tax revenues increased.

Economic "boom" is an excellent choice of words.  Boom, as in the same
thing that the city puts on every 4th of July on the banks of the 
Trinity. Sparkle, pizazz, lots of oohs and ahs, and when its all over,
you have fond memories and a bill for many thousands of dollars.  
Except when played on the Reagonomic scale, many billions of dollars.

Yeah, I remember the economic boom.  And the bills that followed...

Bill Cramer

251 West Central Street, Suite 142	| "A man can't pull himself up
Natick, MA 01760 USA			|    by his bootstraps if he
Internet: cramer@unixland.natick.ma.us	|    can't even afford shoes."
CIS: 70322,3412				|
From: troth@rice.edu (Rick Troth)
Newsgroups: rice.politics,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:54:38 GMT
Organization: Rice University

Coalition needs you)
Reply-To: Rick Troth <TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>

        [old thread;  I managed to escape from Houston during the fray] 
 
In article <1992Aug19.015745.13019@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu  
(Rick Russell) writes:
>
>When pro-lifers can demonstrate to me that they
>
>1) Are ready to provide pre-natal care and appropriate post-natal care
>to all children, regardless of social, racial, or economic standards,
>and
>
>2) Would extend their hands to unwed, pregnant women with promises of
>comfort and help rather than accusations of sin and ostracism,
>
>then I'll be ready to help eliminate abortion from the world.
 
Hi, Rick, 
 
        How's life at TAMU?   Parking's worse than Rice,  eh?    ;-)
 
        What you're suggesting would be  *hard work*,  and I don't see 
any means of reimbursement for services rendered.   So if anyone really 
believes in the pro-life stance,  they're starting from a disadvantage. 
 
        Still ... I've seen them do both 1 and 2.   And they actually 
let themselves feel for the people  (men and women;  parents and 
(unborn) children),  which means that they get hurt when some of those 
parents choose abortion.   But they do what they do from conviction, 
and they're still holding out their hands offering help when those 
parents come back ... again and again.   Maybe they're crazy;  go figure. 
Maybe they just love God and/or people too much to stop doing what they 
believe they must. 
 
--
 Rick Troth <TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> ------------- Rice ONCS VM Systems Support
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:09:25 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <BtLru9.3pL@rice.edu> cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston) writes:
>From: cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston)
>Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
>Date: 26 Aug 92 18:10:57 GMT

>In article <exuptr.173.714782950@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:

>>I want to ban them BY CHOICE, not by law.  How about obsolete?  I like that 
>>word.

>You mean you want conditions to be such as to make abortion
>unnecessary?  Me too.  In the meantime, don't make it illegal.

Who ever said I was?  I just want to say what I think about it :-)

>p.s. let's take houston.general out of the Newsgroups.

Actually, rice.politics is gone, too.

>-- 
>Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + cathyf@rice.edu
>Actually I'm not clueless.  I'm conceptually challenged.
	
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - D Adams
  - Patrick Taylor
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
From: dboyes@is.rice.edu (David E Boyes)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 2 Sep 92 01:49:20 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <BtwrsF.A1J@rice.edu> gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble) writes:

>[...]  As my old friend George Bernard used to
>say, "Democracy is a device that insures that the people shall be
>governed no better than they deserve."

"Democracy is simply the illusion that the masses know what they
want, and deserve to get it, good and hard, preferably with some
energy behind it." -- H. L. Mencken


-- 
David Boyes
dboyes@rice.edu
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: cramer@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Cramer)
Subject: Re: Republican Candidates
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix  (508) 655-3848
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 21:48:21 GMT

jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
: The S&L debacle was caused by the repeal of many of the Real 
: Estate tax advantages.  The liberal Democrats who control
: Congress were mad at the Real Estate industry (because 
: they were making profits.) So, they repealed the tax advantages.  
: This caused the rapid crash of the grossly overinflated Real 
: Estate prices.  This, in turn, caused the failure of many S&Ls
: which had loaned large amounts of money to people buying Real 
: Estate.  These loans went bad, and many S&Ls failed.

This message echoes the words I've been hearing over and over
(for the past week in particular).  The liberal democrats in 
Congress do this, do that -- my god, if the branch is able to
do so damn much and the president is able to do so damn little,
then why the heck is George running for president?  If the 
Congress is as powerful as he claims it is, then why doesn't
he run for the House, become speaker or minority leader and 
really get things done?

Bill Cramer

251 West Central Street, Suite 142	| "The greed of the few outweighs
Natick, MA 01760 USA			|    the needs of the many."
Internet: cramer@unixland.natick.ma.us	|       -- popular American theme 
CIS: 70322,3412				| 

Xref: sparky tx.politics:4761 alt.politics.clinton:3860
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 22:00:52 GMT
 <bVcBr*rV0@caleb.UUCP> <1992Aug31.220001.2595@pony.Ingres.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug31.220001.2595@pony.Ingres.COM>, QUOTE OF THE YEAR writes:

> In article <bVcBr*rV0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)   writes...
> >In article <1992Aug30.062428.19135@posms.cactus.org>, Randy Kirchhof writes:
> > 
> >> In article <dpEAr*vU0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> >> >In article <1992Aug25.033348.26856@pony.Ingres.COM>, QUOTE OF THE YEAR writes:
> >> >
> >> >> I just noticed something. This whole election the Republicans have blamed
> >> >> Congress for the deficit and the recession, Bush was just along for the 
> >> >> ride. During the 80's, the growth we had was caused by Reagan. Why doesn't
> >> >> Congress get credit for that? After all, if someone is going to flack
> >> >
> >> >Probably because Reagan dragged the liberals (kicking and screaming) all the
> >> >way to the tax cuts.  The tax cuts are what made the economy boom.
> >> 
> >> 'scuse me for butting into a conversation to which I have not been
> >> a part, but in my opinion this statement is dead wrong. The
> 
> [stuff deleted]
> > 
> >You've been listening to the socialist media too long.
> > 
> "Socialist" media? This sounds like the communists are coming.

How it sounds is irrelevant.  If you can't see the media's overwhelming Socialist
bias, you are blind.  Just look at the election coverage.  Reporters and analysts
hardly ever ask any embarrassing questions of Clinton.  No matter what the Republicans
say, the press is quick to try to refute it.

> When the election comes around, look at who your local newspaper
> supports. Look at who it supported in 88'. Time will prove you 
> wrong.

My local newspaper is relatively conservative (at least compared to the other media.)

> >I'm telling you again.  The deficit is MUCH LOWER than it would have been
> >if a Democrat had been President!
> >
> I realize that you truelly believe this. But you must also believe
> that this is only an opinion. If you can't see that then you have been
> listening to Republican dogma far too much.

No, you have been listening to liberal propaganda for too long.

How in the world can the liberal Democrats balance the budget when they have so
many expensive new social programs that they want the government to enact?


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:48:55 GMT

In <1992Aug25.224342.24882@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:

>In article <1992Aug24.172229.15958@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1992Aug20.234436.26310@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>>
>>>	Glad to see you're not enemies. (-: 
>>
>>I don't have any live enemies, Joe.  In fact, there are only two
>>people who even come *close* to being vile enough to make my list of
>>potential enemies.  Little loudmouthed fleas like John Haugh II don't
>>even make it into the top 100.

>	Hey, sorry for the insinuation. It is discussion, then, when
>you call JFH "little boy", "asshole", or "flea"?

No, it is 'response in kind'.  I can have a quite low opinion of
someone and/or their actions without having to put them on some
'enemy' list and judge everything they say through that filter.

JFH acts like a little boy, so I call him one.  He acts like an
asshole, so I call him one.  He has the importance of a flea, so I
make the comparison.  He needs to be my 'enemy' for me to note those
things about his behaviour?  If that's so, parents must automatically
consider their children 'enemies' every time the correct or punish
them.  I think not.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: dleon@seas.smu.edu (David Leon)
Subject: Re: Anti-Choice
Organization: School of Engineering and applied science; S.M.U.; Dallas, Tx
Distribution: tx
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 17:03:43 GMT

Before we get too off base, does someone have a reference on the Morning
After Pill?  I can't find the "real" name of the darn thing, so I can't
look it up.  If someone happens to have this info around, please post a 
summary of exactly how it works.  Hvaing to rely on my old, rusty noggin
really frightens me.

David L. Leon
dleon@seas.smu.edu
From: boyd@turtle.fisher.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Abortion (Re: fetus vs. baby)
Date: 25 Aug 92 13:00:22 CDT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Fisher Controls International, Austin, TX

In article <1992Aug25.105109.60@turtle.fisher.com>, boyd@turtle.fisher.com writes:
> In article <Le2RPB2w165w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>> boyd@turtle.fisher.com writes:
>>
>
> And how can anyone deny spiritual reality when there is no spiritual reality,
> but only spiritual beliefs?
Mistake.  I made a mistake. I meant to say: How can anyone deny spiritual
reality when there is no KNOWN spiritual reality, but only spiritual beliefs.
--
Tom Boyd     (512)832-3611             "She looked fluffy,
boyd@turtle.fisher.com                       but she struck like a cobra!"
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Summary: Say What?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:02:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.161707.28933@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Cu writes...
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>In article <vycBr*qV0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> 
>>>(Hypothetical because the press won't press Slick Willie with any embarassing
>>>questions.  They want him to win.)
>>>
You mean like have you slept with a bimbo, dodged the draft, or smoked 
marijuana?

>>>[Press]
>>>  Yeah, free lunch indeed!  It is estimated that your health plan alone would
>>>  cost half of the entire profits of all the businesses in America!  I wonder
>>>  how many jobs that will cost?
>>
There was a post in the net last night that quoted a study that concluded
that Bush's do nothing policy will cost 2 Million more jobs than Clinton's

>>The well-off are already receiving a free health care lunch with with
>>the current massive tax-subsidy program for health insurance.  The
> 
>The solution to this is not more subsidies, more government interference
>and more regulation, as Mr. Clinton proposes, (and will get from the
>Democratic Congress if elected.) 
> 
If you could lokk at reality for a second, we are in this position of a
health care crises WHILE the government has done nothing.

>The solution is deregulation.  Less interference.  And the breaking up of
>the AMA monopoly labor union.
> 
Pray tell, how has the labor union done this? Every study I've seen,
even the ones who don't want government interference, haven't mentioned
the EVIL LABOR UNIONS. And please be specific. Thanks you.

>-- 
>curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
>My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
>  Social Security isn't a retirement plan.  It's middle class welfare.

Good line. Too bad it doesn't mean anything.

-Garrett
From: gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:54:44 GMT
Organization: Tennessee Ernie Port Authority

In article <mumble> troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth) writes:
|In article <1992Aug31.163031.22154@technology.com>
|judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
|>   Wow, Jim.  And the Bible is not, NEVER has been, nor EVER WILL BE the
|>   guiding law of this country.
|        No,  actually it  *was*.

Wow.  Obviously my reading of the Constitution was a little hasty.
Can you tell me which Article this is in?  I don't remember it in the
Articles of Confederation either; tell me if that's what you're
referring to.

-- 
Ben Gamble                              B0 f- t+ w- g+ k- s- m- e r-v p
gamble@owlnet.rice.edu 
       Oh ye who go about saying unto each other:  "Hello sailor":
       Dost thou know the magnitude of thy sin before the gods?
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Republican Candidates
Date: 31 Aug 92 00:22:07 GMT
 <1992Aug30.052400.18634@technology.com>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug30.052400.18634@technology.com>, Richard Murphy writes:

> In article <AfEAr*tU0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> [stuff deleted]
> >
> >I wasn't referring to the amount of legislation passed.  Bush and Reagan could
> >sign LOTS of legislation as long as they signed what the Democrats passed.  Your
> >point is irrelevant.
> >
> >
> >                                                Jim Pritchett
> Nonsense, Jim. Do you think the "liberals" cooked up all the stuff that
> Reagan wanted? How DO you explain the fact that both Nixon and Reagan got more
> of their bills through Congress than Bush? How do you explain why the
> American people seem to keep a good majority of congress on the "liberal"
> side of the fence? Fortunately, most folks realize that "liberal" is just
> a code word for anyone who disagrees with the Republican ideology...

Nixon wasn't conservative (for his time.)  Although, compared to Slick Willie...

Reagan had massive personal popularity to help him get enough grass roots support
to push some of his programs through Congress.  Bush has never really had that
kind of support.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth)
Newsgroups: rice.politics,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-Choice
Date: 30 Aug 92 03:16:13 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Aug28.142403.1206@oakhill.sps.mot.com>
jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry) writes:
 
>The simple reason many Anti-choicers are opposed to these is the same
>reason they are opposed to all birthcontrol.
 
        What pro-lifers do you know that are opposed to birth-control?
I'd like to have a word with them.
 
>                                       Once again the hierarchy of the
>Catholic Church is speaking.
 
        My closest Catholic friends are ... not pro-life.