HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: "HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:43:53 GMT
	    <13596@optilink.COM>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <13596@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>a homosexual is anyone who has sexual contact with members of
>his/her own sex.  No requirement for exclusivity.

Hmmm. Kinsey would say that category describes 37% of the male population
in his 1948 study.

You're trying to use a definition that implies one statistic, and using
a completely DIFFERENT statistic (the famous 4%) to do your dirty work.
Not very intellectually honest, as Mark Carroll has pointed out.

>You obviously don't read very carefully.

This coming from the champion of fuzzy statistics.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
From: lazarus@ug.cs.dal.ca (Chuck Turner)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:26:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.195812.23632@netnews.noc.drexel.edu> giamomj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu (Mike G.) writes:
>In article <13627@optilink.COM> Clayton Cramer, cramer@optilink.COM
>writes:

>> [stats and figures deleted]

> 
>All of your statistics don't mean a thing. And *Nature* magazine is NOT a
>juried publication, anyway (unlike the New England Journal of Medicine, for
>example...).
>Your comments are a bore...

The question is (and I think this is the REAL question) is 10 PERCENT
magazine going to have to change its title or not?

					- Chuck 

 _______________________________________ 
|                                       | '..err..of course I suck blood.' 
| "--whether you are quiet and ALIVE or | 'I don't believe you.' 
| quiet and DEAD makes no difference to | 'I've got a straw right here PAL! 
| Cerebus."                             |  You want a demonstration?!'
|       - Cerebus the Aardvark          |                   - The Tick 
|_______________________________________| Chuck Turner -> lazarus@ug.cs.dal.ca
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The collapse of communism and the role of the U.S.
Date: 15 Dec 1992 23:41:29 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Joseph Askew) writes:
|> Julie Kangas) writes:
|> 
|> >I think it might be better to say the western ideology won the
|> >Cold War.  The West was not the only one fighting against Communism.
|> >Yeltsin and his people were working from the inside to try to destroy
|> >it for quite some time.
|> 
|> Since when was Yeltsin working from the inside to destroy Communism? Since
|> 1977? Since 1965?
|> The truth is he was a life long Communist Apparatchik who deserted the CPSU
|> like a rat from a sinking ship and has done very well for himself since. But
|> only after the Collapse was obvious. And exactly who are 'his people'? All
|> those refuseniks? dissenters? What does it take to be included as one of 'his
|> people'?
|> 
As with everything else, this is a complex system with thousands of
variables.  To assign credit or blame to any of them is hardly worth
the effort.  Frankly, I thought Gorby had a lot to do with it, and
the above exchange implies he didn't exist.

How about back to the original thread which assigned credit for the 
collapse of communism to Reagan and Bush.  The implication, of course,
is that if we had elected Democratic Presidents, Communism would not
have collapsed.  In fact, Communism might have won and Western
"Democracies" would have collapsed.  Interesting theory, but
untestable and unsupportable. 

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Re: WAR IN BOSNIA!!!!
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:31:40 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <BzH5sI.6nw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg ) writes:
>harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>>That is, at minimum we would be enforcing the no-fly zone by
>>intercepting and possibly destroying Serbian fixed-wing aircraft
>>flying over Bosnia.  At maximum, we'd be using smart bombs and
>>anti-radiation missles to take out various targets.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>What the hell is an "anti-radiation missile!?!"  

An anti-radiation missile is a missile designed to pick up a radar beam
(from, for instance, an anti-aircraft missile battery) and ride the beam
in, destroying the source of radiation.  Radiation in this sense is the
microwave type of radiation given out by radar, not nuclear type radiation.
The Navy used this type of weapon in Libya, before the FB-111's came in,
and it was also used in the Gulf War.  The Air Force flies Wild Weasel
aircraft that go in, get the jerks on the ground to turn on their anit-
aircraft radar, and then smoke them.  It's not a job for the weak at heart.
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re:      Re: Muerte De America
Date: 17 Dec 1992 00:58:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) says:

>In article <9212160346.AA05470@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>, 
>GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward "Kervokian" Horne") writes...
>
>>        The higher the debt, the  better your chances of getting
>>   a new boss when it busts.  I'd put the U.S. in about the .7
>>   range of getting a new boss soon.
>
>Let's assume you mean after Jan 20, and furthermore that El Presidente 


     Well, yeah, I figure we're safe until Jan 20.  Actually,
     if he's really lucky, Clinton might get to toss the hot
     potato one last time, and win his posterity entry.

>Clinton is not the perfect scapegoat, <read following in your best
>Assuming all this, and that people would rather watch television
>(a misnomer if ever there was one) than protest in the streets... 
>{Remember the XSSR}
>
>Then yes, I reckon we're in for a nearly bloodless coup, similar to
>the Iraq War and Somalia. {Bloodless for the winners of course.}
>


       I doubt it will be bloodless.  I fully expect some kind
       of outright action.  I'm not so sure we're not in 
       Somalia, confiscating weapons in peace, as a test run.

>>>borrowing. Kinda like being on drugs. At least 43 million Americans
>See a whole $11 B dollar dip.


      Rigged Figures.  The government exludes car leases and 
     certain homeowner equity loans, both of which has jumped
     substantially.   <whistle>

>>         Only if you want to confound the *government* watchers.
>
>Wellll, then, "you got caught with a flat... <ooops>
>I mean:
>
>Gather all yore courage up 
>and spelunk the interstices.
>That ol' goverment safety net
>tain't meant to free yore wishes.
>
>{And if you read the latin way 
> not only don't it rhyme
> but you should really tell yourself 
> "I's intellectu'l slime."
> ....and hopelessly unromantic.}


     As the General Boycott's from a dank FBI dungeon.

>
>
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Macroeconomics 101
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:28:41 GMT

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.

Look, economies go up because people believe in them, and down
when people are feeling concerned about the future. For the first
time in 12 years people have a genuine sense of hope, and, as
a result, this will probably be a record-breaking Christmas
retail season. People finally have a REASON to celebrate.

If Bush had won people would have been even more bummed out
than they'd been, and the economy would have gone even deeper
in the toilet.

The Republicans are right to take credit for the recent
improvement in the economy--but only because they LOST.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64449 soc.motss:52551 alt.sex:39671
From: pezzillo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Amy J. Pezzillo)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 16 Dec 92 04:00:05 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <71739@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
>Here's another one...
>
>"The gay science of genes and brains" Economist Dec 5, 1992
>
>Researchers in the field doubt the oft-repeated figure that one in
>ten men is gay; they think that people whose sex lives are
>exclusively homosexual make up about 4% of the adult men and less
>than 2% of adult women.
>
>Don't give us the "that data can't possibly be valid" crap unless you're
>willing to admit that the 10 percent figure is certainly baloney if
>4 percent might be wrong. There are no surveys that show 10 percent, most
>show much smaller numbers. If it's so darned unimportant, then why
>keep repeating an obviously erronous and politically motivated 10 percent?
>
>Why not just admit it's 2-4 percent, and get on with it?

Well, if I may just make one small correction:  Whether or not it's
accurate, there IS a  survey which shows 10%.  Where do you think the
figure came from, thin air?  The 10% figure was the conclusion of the
survey by Kinsey and associates in the 1950's.

One reason for the big discrepancy in figures may be that the 10%
figure is describing homosexual *behavior* (Kinsey counted those who
had had most or all of their sexual contact with members of the same
gender as homosexual), while the other surveys seem to be counting
only those who *identify* as homosexual.  There are many people who have had
homosexual experiences who do not identify themselves as homosexual.

(Please note that I am not trying to define whether it is the act or
the identification that makes a person homosexual.)

ajp

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: No solid proof to support ( was: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:21:49 GMT

Daniel DuBois writes:
#Damnit, how many times do I have to say this, its getting a little boring.

It doesn't matter how many times you say an incorrect thing.

#The 4.1% can be extrapolated to apply to the population. OK, thats
#fact.

No, it isn't "fact", it is an assumption. How good this assumption is
a very interesting question.

#If you want to argue what you think Clayton was trying to say, fine,
#thats debatable, maybe he actually did mean for the 7% to be extrapolated
#to the population. 

Yes, that is what he actually meant.

Why do you come in with an irrelavent point and waste bandwidth?

Oh, you want the last word. Go ahead, make your stupid point again. 



--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:16:45 GMT

ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>OK, but somebody did get killed due to a breakdown of the vaunted military's
>>actions... where is the indignation? 
>
>	Who, where and when? Is this a reference to the deaths of
>	people that *fired* on a military aircraft? I don't see
>	any "breakdown", there; or are US troops to allow themselves
>	to be killed without retaliation?

The reference was to the Somalis who got killed or wounded at the
weapon-confiscation checkpoint. Their truck (or bus) failed to stop
and the French soldiers fired on them. The original story (disinformation)
was that there was a weapon mounted on the truck. Later it was admitted
that their was no mounted gun, but the men were armed and were trying
to run the roadblock to keep their weapons. Finally, the disinformation
gave way to truth: the passengers were not armed and their junker truck 
had bad brakes. Why did the truth come out? Because the press was there.

>>There is a frightening tendency of
>>people to line up behind the military, right or wrong. 
>	
>	Why is it frightening to support the people placed in
>	harms way?

The operative phrase is "right or wrong."

>	Hey, if somebody shined kleig lights into your eyes
>	while you were trying to drive your car in the dark,
>	I bet you'd do some "press bashing" of your own, pal.

I do plenty of press bashing. Right now, I'd rather bash people like
you (?) who cry crocodile tears about how the press is endangering
lives when really it's not endangered lives they're really concerned
about, it's preserving their militaristic fervor and testosterone buzz.
Their media bashing is a political smoke screen.

>>   and infinite tolerance is shown towards
>>   the men-at-arms. I vividly remember when I first heard about the shooting
>>   down of the Iranian airliner. The true blue patriots who told me shrugged
>>   off this incident as tough luck for the passengers... the plane was diving
>>   in an attack pattern after all. Military disinformation like this is par
>>   for the course. Usually only much later (if ever) do the true circumstances
>>   come out in the press.
>
>	And what did you hear when KAL-007 was shot down? The
>	press printed every vague rumor around; the CIA did it,
>	the Air Force did it..anything that made the US look
>	guilty and the Soviet Air Force look innocent.

I suppose a lot of it was Soviet military disinformation. Some of it came
from right wingers on this side, like the theory that it was an assassination
plot against the Congressman passenger who was a honcho in the John Birch
Society. But there you go bashing the "press" again. The fault lies with 
the generals and politicians. Also, I hope we can do better in this country.
Better than John "Disinformation" Poindexter and a whole host of other cynics
in the outgoing administration(s).

----
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.british,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: 14 Dec 1992 22:52:02 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <Dec.14.08.47.25.1992.25322@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>Jon, since you maintain such a keen interest in the goings-on back in
>merry olde England, you are hereby invited to return there.

Ted, since you maintain such a keen resemblance to a
festering pimple on the butt of a Liberian water-buffalo,
you are hereby invited to return there.

				--Blair
				  "Is that a tire-iron up your ass
				   or are you just glad to see us?"
From: pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I WAS RIGHT!!! YOU ARE CLUELESS!!!!
Date: 16 Dec 92 06:27:03 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <farenebt.724432680@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, farenebt@craft.camp.cla
rkson.edu (Droopy) writes:
>pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>
>>Well people, you have all proven to me that I WAS RIGHT!!! From the last two
>>postings I've made, NONE OF YOU could come up with ANY recourse except for the
>>fact that my grammmmmmmmer isn't by best feature. If all you can do is rip me
>>for some technical misconfiguration of words, don't bother me. After all,
>>LIBERALS use this type of tactic when they are proven WRONG (as opposed to
>>admitting that you were WRONG)! THANK YOU, LEFTISTS! You prove ONCE AGAIN that
>>Rush is the current leader in the mad race of providing POLITICALLY
>>CORRECTNESS and defining people to their actions.
>
>Absolutely. It is us, immoral, feminazi, tax and spend, commie loving,
>anti-family values, eco freak, god-hating, baby killing,
>loony left liberals who engage in
>name calling...but we all know that the innocent conservatives would NEVER
>do anything like that...

   I'm so glad that you agree that you are immoral, feminazi, tax and spend,...
   It's YOUR fault that this country is screwed up, not the conservatives in
   the nation. People like you who say that it's o.k. to kill an unborn
   infant, that it's unconstitutional to make prisoners work hard labor, that
   making public handgun ownership illegal would solve the crime rate assisted
   by the use of firearms (not that narcotics have been illegal for HOW LONG
   and you STILL can't get rid of them), the fact that police officers are
   treated worse than the criminals they try to arrest (although SOME cops
   should not be cops, THEY should be jailed), and so on, and so on........
   The fact that the LIBERALS in Congress don't know what the word PROMISE
   means (RE: Bush's "Read my lips..." speach, and the agreement WITH Congress
   that if he hiked up taxes, they would cut their spending 2 to 1.
>============================================================================
>BRI FARENELL                           Hate is not a family value.
                                           THAT'S RIGHT! Too bad the LIBERALS
                                           and Democrats have a different
                                           meaning for the phrase.(like
                                           Senator Kennedy, M. Barry, etc.)


>FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU       Get involved (or shut up)
>CLARKSON '95
>A pro-life, PC-hating, liberal card-carrying member of the ACLU
>===========================================================================
>"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse
> to see it tried on him personally."   ---Abraham Lincoln
>
   You mean, like what Clinton has in store for us?? I thought so.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:09:28 GMT

In article <Bz7zAu.H2u@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>Then the whole class is blamed for the crimes of a few, and those who aren't
}>guilty are "guilt-tripped" into supporting the victims of the true criminals.
}The rich defend themselves *quite* well, thenk you.

Then how do you explain how they're the main financiers of redistrbution
schemes promulgated by "environmentalist" organizations?  This is in their
self-defense?

}I do not agree with you at all. Helmsley didn't pay her taxes.  She suffered 
}for it.  Her drive was greed.  I don't feel for her at all. 

I have no doubt that you don't care about the poor woman.  So much for your
vaunted compassion.

How much taxes did she not pay?  How much should she have?  How come Alan
Dershowitz disagrees with you?  Could it be because he's a man of principle?

(about Michael Milken)

}Never once was he denied food, medical care, ability to enter a restaurant or
}bus, or life.  He was not beaten, shot at, or vandalized.  Golly, how *did* he
}handle all of those nasty press stories.  They may have been going after him 
}because he was Jewish.  That would be wrong.  I doubt they went after hjim 
}because he was rich.  In this country, that is stupid.

What?  So, he can have any food or medicine he wants in jail?  He can go to
whatever restaurant he wants or ride whatever bus in jail?  Sounds like a
great jail.  How do I get in?

They went after him because he made a killing by financing overthrows of
establishment CEOs and members of the boards of directors.  They were also
able to scapegoat him for the alleged "greed" of the 1980s at the same time.
Ironically, the corporate establishment is far more guilty of the offences
Milken is popularly thought guilty of.

With the tool of civil seizure and forfeiture, going after the rich is now
as easy as going after the poor in the American Empire.

}Unbelievable that you can make this analogy.  Totally off base, in my view.  
}Still, I understand where you are coming from.  I just come from the other side
}of the globe.

Why don't more people make these sorts of analogies?  Because they've bought
into the systematic prejudice against "the rich."

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertopia in Somalia
Date: 15 Dec 92 08:15:18 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1992Dec9.022933.25269@midway.uch:-670784935:cdp:1483600055:000:71
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmorse    Dec 12 17:47:00 1992

In <1483600055@igc.apc.org> Dorothy Morse wrote:
> What is libertarian common law and how is it enforced?  By US marines?

Would you try explaining the existing legal system in a USENET post?

Find a copy of _The_Machinery_Of_Freedom_ or _The_Market_For_Liberty and read
it.
-- 
					Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: smith@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Organization: Harvard Robotics Lab, Harvard University
	<14DEC199200393771@utarlg.uta.edu> <1992Dec14.154053.17594@athena.mit.edu>
	<1992Dec14.164343.23474@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:35:30 GMT

gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:

> Just a clarification: I do NOT consider myself a socialist. . .
> I'm currently a Conservative supporter.

When Ted Kennedy introduced Brian Mulroney at the Kennedy School last
Thursday night, included among his praises for Canada was:

     Canada is one of the few countries in which I can be considered
     a conservative.

Assuming that he was not referring to his personal behavior, may we
conclude that being a Canadian conservative does not preclude one from
also being a socialist?

Steven Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
From: Bill Jenkins <wcj1@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A752D9966A02EC57@cu-dialup-0313.cit.cornell.edu>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 15 Dec 92 00: 38:46 GMT
Nntp-Posting-User: wcj1@cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d15
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:34:14 GMT

a rose is a rose is a rose
a number is a number is a number 
a statistic is a statistic is a statistic

Does it really matter how many?

BillJ
~~~~~
Bill Jenkins   wcj1@cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia