HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kasprj@isaac.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak)
Subject: Re: College Pranks (Was Re: Vacation Time!)
Keywords: Ditch Day, vanishing room
Reply-To: kasprj@rpi.edu
Organization: The Big Wedge 
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 05:06:06 GMT

In article <4098@news.duke.edu>, klg@panda.mc.duke.edu (Kim Greer -- rjj) writes:
|>  Speaking of drilling, has anyone else heard this story? :
|> 
|>   - Americans (around the time of WWII, for some reason) proudly show off
|> 	their very small drill bit as example of fine craftsmanship
|> 
|>   - send aforementioned drill bit to German engineers
|> 
|>   - Germans send drill bit back with a hole drilled through long axis of bit
|> 
|>   I think the first time I heard this was in 5th grade from a teacher who,
|> while being otherwise very competent and likable, also seemed to like to
|> repeat such stories.  I've heard it a couple of other times in the last 25
|> years or so, but of course, no one ever seems to know any details.
 
 I heard a mutated version of this one involving IBM, the world's thinnest
piece of wire, and an unnamed Japanese company. I remember my father telling
it to me when I was in grade school, which would have been the late 70's. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Against Our Will
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU's message of Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:33:05 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<11400@optilink.UUCP> <1992Jul28.013305.15005@morrow.stanford.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 08:50:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.013305.15005@morrow.stanford.edu>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

> You're wrong here, Clayton.  A poll right after Wilson vetoed AB101
> suggests that something like 2/3 of Californians think sexual
> orientation should be treated the same way that race, religion, and
> sex are (i.e., protected under anti-discrimination laws).

This is not an impressive statistic.  About the same
percentage of people think that the police should be
given more latitude to conduct warrantless searches,
but that doesn't make it right.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Dole attack backfires
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 06:08:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.155500.13833@cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
>
>It seems that unless/until the Republican Party brings their campaign
>back in the race, their attacks can't work.

They should hire Mr. Gerard Vignes to formulate their advertising strategy.
Surely he, with his unique perspective on politics and his wise, sage
words, will turn the country around to the Republican cause.  We shall all
become better citizens after hearing his words.
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Date: 21 Jul 1992 17:58:16 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

T. Archer writes:
|> 
|> >|> >No minimum drinking age, eh?  Pretty scarey to me...
|> >|> 
|> >|> Why?  Because it makes individuals responsible for their actions?  I can see 
|> >|> how that would scare some people.
|> 
|> >How does giving a fifteen year old the right to get drunk make him 
|> >responsible for his actions?  Children are children and their actions
|> >need to be subject to control.  
|> 
|> Yes, and it is the job of the parents to control them, not the state.  
|> Banning alchol sales to minors has done nothing to curb drinking by minors, 
|> it has just increased the taboo appeal.  Actions of the state cannot 
|> compensate for bad parenting.  And the state has no business in the 
|> parenting business.
|> 
|> >Sounds like the members of NAMBLA should all be Libertarians then.  You 
|> >see no need for laws to prevent a 35 year old man from having sex with
|> >a six year old girl?  But what if she consents?  This Libertarian stuff
|> >goes from goofy, to scarey, to downright dangerous.
|> 
|> The responsability for choices rests with the individual, regardless of 
|> their age.  Properly raised, the child will not give consent, as her parents 
|> will have taught her.  State activity is no substitute for good parenting.
|> 
|> I am trying my best to address issues in a rational, adult, manner.  About 
|> one more bout of namecalling will earn you a place in my .kill file and I 
|> won't bother with you anymore.

As a rational adult, I am sure you never voilated your parents teaching.  I
am sure you never rebelled.  I am positive, you do exactly the things they
taught you in they way they tought you.

Unfortunately, my children (of whom I am very proud) had to make a few of
their own mistakes and test the bounds.  Why do you think that legal
prohibitions agains such thinks as dring add appeal, while parental
prohibitions would not.

Your arguments assume everyone can walk on water.  And those that don't
won't bother those that do.  There is absolutely no data to support your
thesis.  The Ten Commandments have not stopped proscribed activity, just
given us a standard by which to measure activity.

Libertarians say that you can do anything you want as long as it doesn't
interfer with others.  The only reason for government is to define and
manage the bounds of interferenct.

I am going to have to resort to name calling.  You appear to be an
irrational, unrealistic adult.
From: mgm@clipper.ingr.com (Mike Marfell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Perot....GONE, and good riddens!
Keywords: Dont let the door hit you from behind!
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:09:01 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

> you also have to take into account Perots previous paranoid assertions
> that he could not divulge facts about MIAs because the Vietnamese were
> out to assasinate him.
> 
> This guy is a grade A kook who spies on his children using private detectives.
> 
> This conspiracy story is being put about to hide the true conspiracy,
> namely that from start to finish Perot was a Bush stooge and that he is
> going to endorse Bush on the eve of the election.
> 
> 
> Phill Hallam-Baker


   Perots gone and he does *NOT* deserve the bandwidth people are giving 
him. There's he can say that will bring his credibility back. 

    So GOOD RIDDENS, Ya big eared bonehead quitter, go buy someone else.
-- 

Mike Marfell                                      mgm@clipper.ingr.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: What kind of recession we're in
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:53:14 GMT

davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes:

>In article <1992Jul26.155129.18822@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>| Now let's look at what happened during the Great Depression.  First,
>| the money supply SHRANK by 25%.  Making credit tighter during a
>| recession is exactly the WRONG thing to do.  Next, we saw the

>  I don't think much of lowering interest rates, either. The only
>interest rate on borrowing money which has come down is the mortgage
>rate; credit cards have come down very little if any. As a result the
>people who really need to be able to spend, the lower income types,
>can't afford to borrow, while those who must are borrowing against their
>homes. And those few of us who bucked the trend and actually saved some
>money are getting nothing for it now. The bank interest less tax is
>lower than the inflation.

but, consumer credit card debt doesn't drive an economy.  people tend
to maintain constant balances by nature.  what matters is long term
interest rates for businesses.  their investment/expansion decisions
come from a cost/benefits analysis and long term interest rates provide
the basis for the cost of money.  current real longterm rates are high,
cuz of the federal debt:(

>  This drains money from the US recovery, of course. Germany just
>increased the interest rate by a percent or so. This means you can
>deposit in German banks and earn 9% in a currency which is gaining
>14%/year against the dollar. I'm looking into this now, because I can't
>afford to keep losing money.
go for it!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35270 alt.politics.elections:8888 alt.politics.perot:1021
From: ricci@cbmvax.commodore.com (Mark Ricci - CATS)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: PEROT HAS NOT WITHDRAWN !
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:00:39 GMT
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

<1992Jul21.022415.4269@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: ricci@cbmvax.commodore.com (Mark Ricci - CATS)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: usa
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Keywords: 

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>|> How can you not believe he's a quitter?
>
>To answer your question, my point wasn't whether or not Perot was a quitter--
>I wanted to emphasize the PAIN that we are in for.  If H. Ross Perot
>quit after looking at the size of the problems we face, those problems
>have got to be monumental indeed.

If he didn't quit, would that mean a $4 trillion debt, a $400 billion
deficit and an electorate that has little interest in any of this are not 
monumental problems?   Wake up, will ya!

-- 
===============================================================================
 Mark Ricci - CATS          |   Perot For President -- oh well, not anymore
 Commodore Applications and |             Hello, Andre Marrou
 Technical Support          |             
 ricci@cbmvax.commodore.com |       (but I'd still rather have Jack Kemp)
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett)
Subject: Re: First 20 Spy reasons not to vote for Bush
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 03:43:18 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>In article <1992Jul30.141043.13124@cc.gatech.edu>, barrett@cc.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
>> 1.  He cheats on his wife.
>	When?  Evidence?
No evidence, but still an interesting story which raises just as many if
not more questions than Clinton's stories.  Bush hasn't lied about it
because he's never been asked.

>> 2.  The JFK Thing.
>	What JFK thing?
His name was in the phone book of a Lee Harvey Oswald associate.

>> 3.  The Lying-About-JFK Thing.
>	What JFK thing is there to lie about?  Denial of a non-event is not
>lying.
While Head of CIA, he sent a memo to the DDCI asking for info on 
Jack Ruby.  Then when asked last January whether he had looked into 
the case while CIA director, he said, "No I didn't have any curiosity...
I saw no reason to question [the Warren Commission]."

>> 4.  The War-Hero Thing.
>	He is.
But in two different biographies, one in 1987 and one in 1988, he gives
two conflicting versions of the story in relation to when his crewmen
died.

>> 7.  His doctor says he should get some rest.
>	Naps.
Worked for Reagan.

------------------OS/2 v2.0 -- Why settle for anything less?--------------------
James C. Barrett (barrett@cc.gatech.edu)| "If your so damned smart, why are
Georgia Tech College of Computing       |   you doing what your doing, and I'm
                                        |   president of the U.S.?" - G.Bush
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35030 alt.politics.elections:8754
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Carter Best President in Memory
Date: 11 Jul 92 14:17:16 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <13e5d3INN5mo@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
]Say what you will about Jimmy; all the hostages got home alive
]and he's the only President in the last 50 years who's managed
]to get through four years without dropping bombs on civilians.

Of course, you neglect to mention that the hostages were taken on Carter's
watch to begin with. You also neglect to mention that by not dropping
bombs on civilians, or doing much of anything else useful in foreign
affairs, he abetted the totalitarian takeover of several countries.

]What passed for scandal in his administration would be 
]a prerequite for getting a job with R.R. or George Bush.

Nonsense.
]
]Throw in Camp David, and his selfless activities since leaving
]office, and you've got an ex-President to be proud of.

Yep... he's a great EX-president!

]Of course, the conventional wisdom is that he was bad for the
]economy.  But he left the USA as the leading creditor nation
]--not the leading debtor, as we have now become.  Hey, please

Whenever you end up with a lousy economy, and with no growth prosepects,
you become a creditor nation because the people have no money to buy
foreign goods, and the foreign investors have no incentive to invest
in your economy.

]stop with the bogus tables showing that the 80's were good
]for the working class (i.e. those who have to work).  Just
]ask any Cop, Social Worker, Emergency-Room Physician or City
]Teacher who's been working since at least 1980: he or she will
]know the truth.

Gee, it's too bad you don't like facts such as show up in "bogus tables."
If you want to see where the difference between increased income and
increased standard of living has been going for the last 30 years,
take a look at the increased bite taxation (to pay for democrat inspired
spending) is taking on the working class' paycheck.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Character issues DO matter (sometimes)
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:13:47 GMT

In article <3977@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>We've rejected Douglas Ginsberg because
>he smoked marijuana in his youthful days. 

Well, that turns out to not quite be in exact accord with reality.
Ginsberg was rejected because he smoked marijuana WHEN HE WAS A LAW
PROFESSOR.  This is not exactly a youthful peccadillo, and by the time
someone becomes a professor at a law school one should probably expect
them to know better and be beyond that sort of 'youthful mistake'.

In the case of both Clinton and Gore, their marijuana experimentation
was when they were much younger, and it was experimentation, not the
sort of use patter that I understood Ginsberg to have had when he was
a law professor.

-- 
"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: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc
From: haefner@infonode.ingr.com (Mark W. Haefner)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: Acceptance speech text - Bible misquote
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:10:10 GMT

In article <NEERI.92Jul21135517@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>In article <1992Jul19.162410.5194@infonode.ingr.com> haefner@infonode.ingr.com (Mark W. Haefner) writes:
>>By the way, Clinton's use of "covenant" was taken by many in the media
>>covering the convention as a way to make the southern christian groups
>>feel that they had something in common with Clinton. Try though he may,
>>Clinton will not get the southern vote.
>
>Do you also believe, then, that Bush's use of "New World Order" was an attempt
>to get the free masonic vote ? 
>
>Matthias
>
>-----
>Matthias Neeracher                                      neeri@iis.ethz.ch
>  "Nur die halbe Welt ist Teflon und Asbest" -- Einstuerzende Neubauten 

Could be? 

Mark


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais)
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 07:07:47 GMT

In article <3398@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1992Jul19.225428.25403@afterlife.ncsc.mil> glreno@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Gerald Reno) writes:
>>
>>Correct me if I'm wrong... aren't we ALREADY in the biggest
>>recession since the 1930's?
>>
>>Jerry Reno (Nobody N. Nowan) glreno@afterlife.ncsc.mil
>
>Well Jerry I'll correct you.  First of all we are NOT in a recession at all,
>yes the media likes to use that word but if you pick up an economics book you'll
>see the reality. 
>
>Recessions are typically marked by high inflation, interest rates, low consumer
>spending, high unemployement.  Our economy has NONE of those traits.  7.2%
>unemployement rates are not high, they could be lower but they are not high at
>all by historical standards and we have low interest rates, low inflation,
>consumer spending, what we have is not a recession.
>
>
>If you want to see the worst recession since the 30's take a look at the
>economy near the end of the Carter administration, that's a bad recession
>and take note at the policies Carter and his Democratic Congress and how
>similar they are to what Clinton proposes.
>

AHEM,unemployment is *much* higher than 7.2% in parts of the country 
such as New England. and the unemployment rate  earlier this year
was *higher* than it was during the end of the Carter administration,
the deficit has grow from ~65 billion during Carter to over 200billion.
We *DO* have low consumer spending- even Bush was babbling 
about the how the recession would just be over if everyone would
start spending again. And it's *depressions* that are typically
marked by high inflation not neccesarily recessions.
And we *are* in a recession -(yeah right like Bush might really
use that term if it weren't so) And incidentally the WSJ
(which has gotten facts amazingly screwed up in the last few
years) said they *predicted* a period of low growth coming out
of the recession, it never said that we didn't have a recession. 
Kristin
           

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Perot's October Surprise
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:32:09 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:

>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>That Clinton will win one of the most massive popular landslides of all
>>time...Bush can hardly do anything to recover at this point...

>Bush hasn't even _done_ anything yet and the Demos have just held
>their convention.  Let's not forget Carter's 30% lead (which dropped
>to just a few percent, 2%?, although he still won), and Dukakis's %20
>lead. 

Bush CAN'T do anything except run a negative campaign.  What the heck can
he run on that's positive?  Let's see:

Gulf War : Hussein is still in power, thumbing his nose at Bush

Economy : yeah, right

Employment : yeah, right

Taxes : I can see the Democratic commercials now..."Read my lips"

Balanced budget : Uh, George, what about that deal you made??


I don't see much hope here....and 'Family Values' just isn't going to do it
when the economy is in the dumper...

If Clinton doesn't do something stupid, he wins a landslide.  I've been
predicting Clinton for over a year now...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:45:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.231308.11598@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM> scc@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM (Stephen Carlson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul19.211814.3023@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>                        Although nauseating little statements like "the
>>black miscegenator" display the racism at the heart of law and
>>economics, 
>
>Just curious:
>
>	Why is it that you do not also call Posner an anti-Semite?

Possibly because Posner's Jewish, though that presumably wouldn't stop
Ed if he were one of the few lefties that actually gave a damn about
anti-Semitism.

Still waiting for Ed to respond to my refutation of his criticism of
law and economics that I posted a week ago.  (Or Larry for that matter.)

Guess Ed prefers to pretend that the finding of one Latinate word in
a twenty-year career of academia and a twelve-year career on the bench
"proves" racism, though I would think that such a blatant "racist" would
have left a much more telling paper trail given his outspokeness on other
issues and his hundreds of opportunities to display racism while sitting
on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  Leaving aside, for the moment,
that Ed has demonstrated absolutely nothing with his use of the Law and
Literature passage except that he knows as little about Shakespeare as he
does about Posner or law and economics.
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: George "Frenchy" Bush? (Was: What is Bush's veto record?)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<l6r4d6INN1g3@spim.mips.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:31:10 GMT

<In article <l6r4d6INN1g3@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
<   In article <veal.107@utkvm1.utk.edu>, veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
<|>      That's because he's very careful not to veto anything he thinks the 
<|> Congress can override.  That way his veto looks more powerful than it 
<|> actually is.
<|> 
<Which is why he signed the Clean Air Act, and then had the 
<gaul to claim credit for it.  
 ^^^^

	First Caesar, then Charles DeGaulle, now George Bush;
	*I* say, haven't those poor French folks had enough?
	
<He doesn't give us enough credit for brains.

	Ahem. Perhaps your line of credit for brains
	is a bit overextended?
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's speech
Date: 21 Jul 1992 17:02:39 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Elisabeth Riba writes:
|> Two things about Clinton's speech that bothered me.  First was his
|> reference to Bush and the "vision thing."  I've heard a lot of
|> comedians use that phrase, but never heard Bush's original speech.
|> What was the original intent of the "vision thing"?  Was it, as
|> Clinton stated, a mocking of forward-thinking and optimism?  Or was it
|> something else.  Does anyone remember the original context?

What bothers you?  Is it that you never heard the original speech?
|> 
|> Second, for all the time and effort Clinton put into that speech, you
|> would think he would have caught something as blatant as a dangling
|> modifier.  Maybe I spent too much time as an English major, but this
|> one really stuck out.  And, surprisingly, I didn't hear anyone else
|> mention this gaffe.  Did you catch it?
|> 
Obviously there aren't enough English majors out here.