HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,ca.politics
Subject: Re: For Those Who Think That Gay Men Have Changed Their Behavior
Date: 21 Nov 92 21:31:02 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <13326@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
##                        November 19, 1992 
## ************************************************************************
##  "Almost One-Third of Gay Men in Study Admit to Unprotected Anal 
## Intercourse" Washington Post (11/19/92), P. A2 


Ya know, Clayton, I was waiting for you to post something about this.
I just knew you could not resist. 

I was amused becasue a story on CNN about 10 days ago gave figures
that 57 percent of heterosexuals engage in "unsafe" sexual practices. 

So of 57 percent of hets and 33 percent of homosexuals are  doing
something bad, which group is acting more reasonably?

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: NREN Summary available?
Date: 19 Nov 1992 19:33:02 GMT
Organization: Institute of Forest Genetics DataBase
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: s27w007.pswfs.gov


If anyone has an online summary or copy of the NREN bill
championed by Al Gore, could you e-mail a copy to:

    bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov 

Thanks in advance,
    --Brad Sherman
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:07:19 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Nov20.152518.8344@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>I'm having trouble parsing the symbols you're using.  If you mean that
>two non-incumbents face each other on a more level playing field than
>an incumbent and a non-incumbent, then I have to point out that the
>proposed solution, term limits, just means that the incumbent would
>face a field so vastly tilted against him as to be, by definition,
>unclimbable.  If you want a level playing field, you should work to
>create a field that's level for _all_ candidates, not just for
>non-incumbents.

Perhaps I can help.  There are a number of problems in Congress that relate
to the buildup of power in individuals that stay there for long periods of
time.  The seniority system, the war chest effect, the cronyism, and so on
and so forth.  Now, we can try to address these individual problems in some
reasonable and efficacious manner, which means making many tiny steps over
a long - VERY long - period, presuming, of course, that any progress can be
made at all.  Or we can pick out a simple-minded but sweeping solution that
would address or, at least, shake up, _all_ the target problems, and try to
get it passed, even though we _know_ perfectly well it isn't perfect and will,
in fact, cause other problems, not all of which we can see yet. The first
alternative requires a long-term lobbying effort against the very people who
are most of the current problems and who will be most resistant to any sort
of change, the second requires only a single vast effort to convince an
electorate that isn't really too bright and won't sit still to learn or study
a package solution of complex tradeoffs.

Most of the people pushing for term limits are fully aware of the fact that
it is not a perfect solution, that it will have problems of its own, and,
bluntly, we accept that as the price of getting that first piece of dynamite
into the logjam, for we feel the likelihood of encouraging the system to
reform _itself_ is foredoomed to utter failure.

Now, you sound like someone very enamoured of Congress, that you believe it
is basically sound and requires only minor tinkering to make it better gov't.
I think, and I expect a lot of people agree with me, that it's an utter, gut-
wrenching, godawful, stinking mess, and I'd vote for _anything_ Congress was
against.  Term limits, for starters.  No, it won't _fix_ the logjam, but it's
a start.  And maybe in the flux that follows we'll find ourselves with a
Congress that's a little more amenable to the careful tinkering you suggest.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: clinton's court?
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 14:07:56 GMT


In article <86937@bcsaic.boeing.com>, 
rwojcik@atc.boeing.com said:

> Believe it or not, [Byron] White is the only Democrat on the Court.  

Minor technical quibble: White is the only currently sitting Justice
who was appointed by a Democratic president (JFK, 1962).  That's not
quite the same thing as saying that he's a Democrat himself, or that
he's the only one.

(I suppose that the official political affiliations, if any, of the nine
Justices could be derived from Washington, D.C. voting registration
lists (these are public records, no?), but if anybody's ever actually
gone to the trouble of doing so, I've never heard about it.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61279 alt.politics.elections:24250 alt.rush-limbaugh:10219 talk.rumors:1363 alt.activism:19095
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 22 Nov 92 00:34:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Nov18.223918.11569@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.001238.28626@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>I *still* haven't figured out what Anita Hill's motive for lying would
>>have been.  

>How about any of the following:

>1) She's crazy
>2) She was jealous
>3) political power (Head of the EEOC?)
>4) money ($10,000 per speech)
>5) didn't want a conservative black on the court

>How many possibilities do you need?

One rational one.  One rational one with some evidence behind it.

1 and 2 are just ridiculous.

As for 3 and 4, she didn't come forward with accusations; some Senate
staffers leaked them.  So it's pretty unlikely she was doing it for fame.

As for 5, why not?  a) She's racist.  She only wants whites on the Court.
or b) She thinks that a conservative black would hurt black liberalism.
B) is vaguely possible, but pretty far out in left field; Clarence
"Ignore the Bill of Rights" Thomas, Clarence "I benefitted from AA, but
no one else should" Thomas does more to discredit black conservatism than 
Anita Hill ever could.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Heterosexual AIDS
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:25:19 GMT

In article <1emo2jINNdrc@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
>Remember that the majority of (HIV/AIDS) cases in the world are heterosexual.

Misleading statement.  Remember that the vast majority of heterosexual
AIDS cases worldwide have co-factors such as genital ulcers, intravenous
drug use and needle-sharing, and female circumcision that are not present for,
and thus irrelevant to, the vast majority of heterosexuals reading the net.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61017 sci.econ:8775 bit.listserv.politics:18512
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ,bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Who makes what
Date: 19 Nov 92 12:58:16 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

			Where the money is:


Adjusted Gross Income (billions)
(Includes capital gains, but not those who are not required to file.)
$1000|
     |
     |
 $800|                     XXX
     |                     XXX
     |                     XXX
 $600|            XXX      XXX      XXX
     |            XXX      XXX      XXX
     |            XXX      XXX      XXX
 $400|            XXX      XXX      XXX                       XXX
     |            XXX      XXX      XXX                       XXX
     |   XXX      XXX      XXX      XXX      XXX      XXX     XXX
 $200|   XXX      XXX      XXX      XXX      XXX      XXX     XXX
     |   XXX      XXX      XXX      XXX      XXX      XXX     XXX
     |   XXX      XXX      XXX      XXX      XXX      XXX     XXX
    0-------------------------------------------------------------------
	<$15k  $15-30k  $30-50k  $50-75k  $75-100k $100-200k $200k>

	Figures are for 1990.

	Now, about this "raising taxes on the rich (>$200k)"....

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne)
Subject:      Re:
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 14:31:32 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA17047; Sun, 15 Nov 92 13:40:37 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA08909; Sun, 15 Nov 92 13:40:35 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 3894; Sun, 15 Nov 92 14:43:25 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 6951; Sun, 15 Nov 92 14:43:24 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
caen!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!ira.uka.de!chx400!dxcern!vxcrna.cern.ch!p
From: poser@vxcrna.cern.ch (Till Poser  -  ZEUS OFFLINE)
Subject: Re:
Reply-To: poser@vxdsyc.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:53:06 GMT

>Sweetheart, once You stop raving, it would not be the worst of ideas to
>take a good look at the numbers again: In my book that is 25.6 x 10E9
>Reichsmark, i.e. 25.6 _billion_. Even given that the buying power of the
>Reichsmark was higher than todays Mark, that still makes it less than a
>trillion (1e12).

      yes, you're right.  It's billions.  I plead guilty to 60 hour
      work weeks under the U.S. government, weeks of staring at
      trillions of debt from the U.S. government, and a misleading
      history book which claimed that Germany's debt was over
      2 trillion.

>No, since it seems to be populated with the likes of You. 8 zeros, oh
>most clueless one, are a hundred million, capiche?

      No, wrong.  Our congress is populated by people who see
      trillions as billions, not billions as trillions.

>It appears that Your mathematical erudition is on par with with Your
>political acumen. It might serve well as an idictment of US education.

>Sheesh, what they teach those USAians these days!

     Ahhh. If only you knew.  You're right, I bailed out on Differential
     Equations, they seemed irrelevent.  BUT.  The idea, which is surely
     more important than a mistaken decimal point ( quickly put in order
     by others ) remains valid.

     The United States government Federal Debt to Income ratio has
     now surpassed 1932 Germany.  Conclusions -

        a)  It ain't getting paid back
        b)  The deficit ain't getting cut
        c)  The U.S. government goes totalitarian within in another
            few years.  The signs are already in place.  The "Crime
            Bill", politically correct thinking, etc.  We're going
            to see a concerted effort, either by the population, or
            through government, to create more conformity.

     Just look -  riots in Germany, riots in the U.S., riots in Mexico,
     riots in Japan.  A genuine repeat of history.  Trade wars.  It's
     all there, it's all the same.  But, I have modified my likely
     candidate for initiating war.  Russia.  The conditions there most
     closely fit 1932 Germany.  Plus, nobody is paying attention. :)

     By the way, I agree on U.S. education.  Instead of actually learning,
     which I was foolish enough to pursue, it's much more important to
     complete the required 128 units.  Unfortunately, 200 units later,
     it seems irrelevent now. :)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Campaign strategy
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:57:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.195555.2945@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.012534.26736@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>
>>Campaigns used to be a lot more nasty than they are today. 
>
>This makes it okay for the president of the US to call a governor and
>Senator "bozos" I guess.  'Worse has been done before'.  It's a poor
>argument at best.

>>Today, people
>>act like there is something wrong with attacking your opponent (unless
>>you opponent is Bush, in which case it is okay to call him racist,
>>uncaring, conspiratorial, liar, etc).
>
>I don't know of anyone calling Bush a racist (besides Jesse, and I think

Maxine Waters called Bush a racist this summer. She was on the Clinton campaign
team. She made no apology for it.

Pat
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: wiggins@cecer.army.mil (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Dole v. Foley and Mitchell
Organization: US Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Labs
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:43:16 GMT

jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly) writes:

>In article <farenebt.721921629@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (droopy) writes:
>>Actually, Foley spoke of a compromise, most vetos require a 2/3
>>to override but he suggested that a lineitem veto only require
>>a simple majority. Thus giving the prez power to cut pork
>>no one believes in while not allowing the prez to get too partisan
>>in his penstrokes.

>In my view, the 50% rule *does* allow partisan pork-slashing under the
>current distribution of votes.  With 2/3, some Republicans have to
>be brought on board to override a veto -- precisely the problem the Dems
>were having with Bush's vetoes -- and the distribution in Congress is no
>more favorable for the Dems than before.  With 50%, the Dems themselves
>can push through their pork if they want to.
>-- 
>	Jim Gillogly
>	U.S. National Debt: $4,135,550,811,824
>	Your Share: $16,169

True, but at least members of Congress _may_ have to go on record as
being in full support of those projects.  However, I think getting such
a provision passed in the first place is going to be nearly impossible.

 ===========================================================================|
 |                                      | Success is getting what you want. |
 |Don Wiggins                           | Happiness is wanting what you get.|
 |Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner       |
 ===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li)
Subject: Yang Baibing and China After Deng.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:16:16 GMT


I read a very sensitive story in World Journal. It said
that Yang Baibing was stripped his millitary power for
a "failed coup". It said that before the CCP's 14th Congress,
Yang held a private meeting with some generals in Xiang Shan.
These generals were mostly from Beijing Millitary District
and Armed Police. They are Yang Baibing's "Qing1 Xin4".
During the meeting, they discussed how to handle the situation
of China after Deng Xiaoping's death. (Sound like Lin Biao's
571 Project).

Finally, Deng Xiaoping was informed by some internal sources
about this meeting. He was very much alarmed. Some generals
such as Qin Jiwei complained that if Yang Baibing has power
after Deng's death, all of them would have head fall. Even some
generals who were promoted by Yang Baibing complained about
Yang Baibing's ambition of grabing power after Deng's death.

Deng Xiaoping was very concerned about the stability of
China after his death. He realized that Yang Baibing would
be a source for the country's split after his death. Therefore
Yang Baibing was stripped all major millitary power in the
14th CCP Congress.

Will there be a big political show down after Deng Xiaoping's
death?


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: B118789@VAX.CSC.CUHK.HK
Subject:      Political Prisoners in China
Reply-To: B118789@VAX.CSC.CUHK.HK
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:19:00 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

Netters,

I made a mistake Saturday when I quoted Hongda Harry Wu as saying
there were 20 million political prisoners in China today. He
said, in fact, that there were 20 million prisoners.

A review of Wu's book in "Far Eastern Economic Review" (8 Oct 1992)
said that about 10 percent of the prisoners in China are
political prisoners.

Some netters have attacked my character because of what I wrote.
Frankly, I do not know if Wu's figures are correct or not; all I
know is that Wu's book "Laogai: The Chinese Gulag" has been
described as an academic study that surpasses all that has been
written before on this subject.

I was just passing along his information, for what it was worth.
In any event, I apologize for my mistake -- and I would have
corrected it earlier, but our micro-vax stopped working over the
weekend.

Mak
Hong Kong
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: kxd5425@usl.edu (Du Kaisheng)
Subject: Re:  What the HK governor is doing?  Why?
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:40:00 GMT

In article <By1uCz.GA9@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> yawei@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (~{QG9p~}) writes:
>
>It really sickens me that more and more oversea Chinese students
>are becoming "echo bugs" of the CCP government, and simply repeats
>what CCP says on whatever issues (and make it sound like that
>they are so "patriotic" blah blablah.)
>
>What do the people of Hong Kong want?  And what do Chinese
>people think about democratization in Hong Kong?
>
>According to a Newsweek report, 59% of the people in Hong Kong
>thinks HK should press ahead with democratization even if CCP
>objects.
>
>The South China Morning Post did a servey in Guangzhou and Shen-
>Zhen (CCP territory, mind you), and 56% of those surveyed 
>favored Patten's reform proposals.
>
>Why do people in Hong Kong all of a sudden want democracy, while
>they did not demand it during the past 150 years?  Interesting
>thought, after all, CCP represents their "motherland", right?
>I think the people of HK have some very legitimate fear that
>their freedom may be taken away once they are returned to their
>"mother", from whom many of them escaped not so long ago.
>
>What do our patriotic network friends think about these?
>
>Patriotism sucks.
>
>  
>  Ya-Gui Wei
>
Why do people in Hongkong all of a sudden want democracy, while they did
not demand it during the past 150 years?  Really intersting question.
For me the answer is very simply: nobody gave them the chance to express
their opinion on the question.  Now someone thinks that the Hongkong
people have been educated well enough and they can have it. But the devil
Communist Chinese goverment is against. To show the CCP how thirsty the 
Hongkong people is for the democracy, let's take a poll and let the world
see how generous the British is and how devil the CCP is. THere are ??%
of people who are for the democracy , the CCP even refused . Terrible
goverment.

Also CCP is no angel, neither is British.  Most of the mainlanders who 
who doubted the motive of the British' behavior can not simply be
named as being CCP brain washed.  That CCP is not good does not necessarily
mean that we must fight against every move it makes.  ANd also, that British
is good does not necessarily mean that it always means good.  No one in
this net said that the people of Hongkong do not deserve democracy. We 
are questioning the motives of the  British goverment. How can you a colonist
so much? Are they really for the interest of the Hongkong people? 


Du




Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: carl_@nwu.edu 
Subject: Re: Prisoner Execution: Shot from Behind 
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:07:43 GMT

In article <By359y.39w@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> bihkyan@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Yang Yuanxin)  
writes:
> In article <By33D9.93H@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu  
(xiao-lin li) writes:
> >In article <By2zD9.35t@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> yawei@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu  
(~{QG9p~}) writes:
> >>In article <By2Lrp.C8C@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> bihkyan@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Yang  
Yuanxin) writes:
> >>>living inside China are unaware of this "practice", Only some smart
> >>>people living outside China are aware of this. Why? Because this kind
> >>>of news are manufactured outside of China.
> >>> People who believe in this kind of thing must be one of the following
> >>> two kinds of people:
> >>> 1. Too naive/stupid.
> >>> 2. Real enemy of China. (Who actually know this are untrue)
> >>
> >
> >I witnessed only one time of the execution in my entire life.
> >But it was horrible. I never want to watch it again.
> >
> >That was in 1976 when I in the countryside for the first year
> >as "intellectual youth". It was after Mao's death. The commune
> >....
> >and followed too. I was very curious to see how people would
> >be executed.
> >
>    But that happened 16 years ago! re-read the original post, auther
>  is talking about today!
> 
>    One of my friend said he once saw a prisoner was executed in a 
>  electic chair, he told me many details he saw, and that was happened
>  in the US. 
> 
>    BTY, you are a famous SCC story/lie teller, I don't buy your story
>  at all, just assumed it was true.
> 
> YY
> 

I wonder why Mr. Yang Yuanxin always denies the facts that these terrible  
things do happened in China. It seems to me that he only accept the People's  
Daily which was free to subscribe. He constantly says the he doesn't buy this  
and that and call people liers. What is the mentality? It's really an  
interesting phenomenon.

Mr. Yang, I think now you can only "buy" all the news from the People's Daily.  
(This time, you really have to buy because the People's Daily is no longer  
free.)

Carl
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: ~~{5K~~}@bunny.rhic.bnl.gov (~~{5K6,F=~~})
Subject: Re: Who is D-fighter?
Organization: ~~{W<9bKYVX@kWS6TW2;z~~}(Au+79)-> Little BIG BANG <-(Au+79)
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:06:31

>>>>> In article <92313.195136SXS30@psuvm.psu.edu>
>>>>> "SXS30" == SXS30  <SXS30@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

  SXS30> After reading so many D-fighter-bash post, I am getting lost
  SXS30> a little. I am not sure if someone ever declared he/she is a
  SXS30> Dfighter in the net, but creat a non-exist people or group to

A real D-fighter never posts here, one is too busy to post anything. But part
time amateur D-fighters do post.;-).



--

~~{5K6,F=~~} 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china