HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Technical Terms For New users....
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:23:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.212800.24835@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com
    (drieux, just drieux) writes:

> [Lots of things which are possibly of interest to some other
>  newsgroup]

Please, please, PLEASE remember that alt.usage.english is
not a garbage dump.

Why do some people feel the urge to add alt.usage.english to the
distribution list whenever they feel that they're becoming
incoherent?

-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Cable Regulation [Was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!]
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:50:08 GMT

In <70165@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK):
>In <9210060146.AA58813@sub.its.rpi.edu> buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:

>>I just saw on CNN that Bush's 36th veto was just over-ridden. So the Cable
>>Regulation Bill becomes law despite Bush. Of course it is unclear whether
>>cable rates will go up or down, but Bush losing a veto fight seems like a
>>progressive result.

>PROGRESSIVE RESULT?  This has got to be one of the most disgusting examples
>of government interference.  The way congress pandered to the public (and
>especially the networks), embarrassed the President, and infringed on the
>rights of the cable companies in one fell swoop is a tribute to the type
>of scum that inhabit our legislative branch.  What better pre-election
>gift from Santa Congress to the "entitlement junkies" than the promise to
>lower their precious cable bill!  Never - NOT ONCE - did I ever hear anyone
>in the media suggest that you simply cancel your subscription if it's too
>expensive.  People think they're bloody ENTITLED to low-cost cablevision, as
>if it were a necessity of life!  The locals interviewed generally responded
>something like this [in your best red-neck, "Bubba" accent]:  "It just
>ain't far that I gotta pay 40 bucks a month for my M-T-V!"  Combined with the
>fact that so many people this election year think Clinton is going to 
>significantly improve their lives, this bill well illustrates the selfish
>idiocy rife within the American public.

This is idiocy itself.  While the bill may not have been the optimal
choice (and, in fact, I don't believe it was) it is certainly BETTER
than the status quo.

It wasn't that the cable companies were setting high, but fair, prices.
They had *monopolies,* and were setting whatever ridiculous price they
wanted.  (Granted, the monopolies were granted by the local governments,
and an optimal bill would simply have forbidden this.)

But the bill simply says that in the absense of competition, the prices
charged by cable companies can be regulated, and it forbids certain
ridiculous practices designed to increase the hidden costs of cable --
forcing you to rent a box and remote for no reason, for instance.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: I HEARD ROSS PEROT WILL BE BACK
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:41:04 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep26.150549.1381@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>  In a Louis Harris poll last Thurs. -- 20 % Perot, without even much of the
>publicity that he's receiving now...
>
>  I think he may win enough states to hang the election, if he's smart.

  Perot *himself* said that the reason he dropped out was to avoid hanging
  the election, since doing so would only land it in the House, which
  would only distract the government from trying to get itself out
  of the current mess.   There will be more new faces in Congress this 
  year than at any time since 1946, or possibly even earlier so there's
  a *chance* of some real reform.   But if Perot hangs the election that
  reform will be put on hold until the Presidency issue is sorted out 
  and the new President can pick a cabinet, etc.  

  Since hanging the election is the best a Perot candidacy can hope to
  do then this shows how hypocritical and unpatriotic Ross Perot 
  really is.


---peter


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:48:28 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



# THEN:
# you must be in favor of regulating heterosexual sex due to 
# the other STDs that get transmitted by it.
# 
# ELSE:
# you are simply being a homophobe.

(cramer)
/I'm not sure why you are so dense.  My point is NOT to justify
/regulating what you do in private, but to point out that the same
/excuses that you use for EEO laws for homosexuals, can be used to
/justi regulating homosexuality, promiscuous behavior, etc. 


No, they cannot be used for that.  It is you who is being dense by
insisting that the situations are equivalent. EEO laws state that 
no one can discriminate for reasons not related to the jobs, housing,
loans, education, etc.

If the principle is "no discrimination for irrelevant reasons", then
explain to me how this can be turned against gays and used to regulate 
against them.  This is what you have, so far, not been able to
do.  









Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:11:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.195341.22724@ra.msstate.edu> cea1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Carolyn E. Adams-Price) writes:
>no matter what they decided. Furthermore, research says that college females who
>choose abortion are emotionally more stable and adjusted to their decision
>two years later than those who kept the baby and those who gave it up
>for adoption. 
Can you please post some data to support this contention?
What would be useful:
1) A reference to a paper in a refereed journal that show this to
be the case.
2) At least a brief summary that gives information like sample sizes,
methods used for assessing emotional stability, etc.
3) Addresses the issue of controlling for mental stability before
the decision.

Thanks.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:01:36 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Bruce Varney) writes:
|> kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
|> 
|> >Yes, I would agree that most people who engage in sexual activity know
|> >this, and if they're interested in avoiding conception, they use birth
|> >control.  They are still risking pregnancy.  HOWEVER, if that contraception
|> >fails, THERE IS A RELATIVELY SAFE, LEGAL (for the moment) ALTERNATIVE.
|> 
|> 	Abortion is certainly not safe for the unborn child involved.
|> 
Considering the chances for a normal miscarriage (abortion by God?  This
could start a whole new branch of discussion!) and our abnormally high
infant mortality rate, not being aborted isn't exactly safe either?

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48784 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6124 alt.politics.bush:7318 alt.politics.elections:14757 talk.abortion:39634 alt.politics.clinton:7957
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:55:53 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <BvEtnB.26y@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
#lefty@apple.com (Lefty) whines:
#
#: This is also a lie.
#
#Perhaps you should consider providing figures (with references) of your
#own, rather than brushing someone else's (albeit undocumented) claims
#of with a simple "This is also a lie."

I don't know - maybe Lefty's like me.  When someone else has already
posted documentation that disproves the claims in the same thread,
I rarely feel it necessary to re-post the documentation.

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: usenet@inesc.pt (USENET News System)
Subject: Re: A question I have always wanted to ask
Reply-To: jota@tutor.inesc.pt (Joao Pedro Martins)
Organization: INESC - Inst. Eng. Sistemas e Computadores, LISBOA, PORTUGAL.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:02:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.211736.19085@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>
>Why does no one ever talk about UnBornGrandParents?
>

Obviously, because that requires a condom and a time machine,
and since there is no known time machine in our days...

----
 joao Pedro Martins, Lisboa, Portugal - jota@tutor.inesc.pt
 
 "Carpe Diem, she muttered, and laughed. We seize the day.	
  Well, sometimes, the day seizes back !" (--FORGOT--) 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Hospital Study Suggests Gays Are Very Unlikely To Be Molesters
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:28:53 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <97381@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
...
>The doctors said boys and girls alike overwhelmingly said they were abused
>by heterosexual men ...
...
    Boys abused by _heterosexual_ men?


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.perot
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Henry Ross Perot -- anagrams
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:42:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: utarlg.uta.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct5.061252.13341@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, dtiberio@csws18.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes...
>In article <4OCT199222470702@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>>In article <1ao6gsINN5cu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Henry Ross Perot -- anagrams
>>>*******************************
>>> 1.  Shorty errs?  Nope!
>>> 2.  He's ornery, Sport!
>>> 3.  Spy on the errors.
>>> 4.  Open yer shorts, R.!
>>> 5.  The sorry person.
>>>*******************************
>>
>>I love it Dave.
>>
>>-- Stephen
>>
> 
>	Stephen Tice - The Nice Pets
>		       Pec This Teen
>		       Steep Hen Tic

;-)  Yeah, yeah "mother hen."

Here's another:  He's T-n-Ice, Pet!

-- Sdt
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: An informed voter picks Bush
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:41:33 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@redwood26


In article <2AC9F159.9997@news.service.uci.edu>, jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley) writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.175617.3075@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep28.94729.24996@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
> >>Brad Green writes:
> >
> >>>Did you catch CNN today?  Seems Wall Street is finally looking at the
> >>>possibility of Clinton winning, and stocks are dropping?  How can that
> >>>be, if all these CEO's and Wall Street folks support him?
> >
> >>Stocks are dropping for technical reasons: can you say "poor P/E ratios"?
> >>can you say overvalued stock price to asset ratios? can you say "low dividends"?
> >>I knew that you could.
> >
> >In that case why is it dropping now instead of six months ago?  Maybe
> >because the market is lowering the expected future value of those
> >stocks becasue they anticipate Clinton screwing up the economy?
> 
> Actually, I thought stocks started dropping and the deutsch-mark started
> falling the day after George Bush's acceptance speech.  Although not
> the only reason, it seems that market analysists looked at Bush's call
> for an across-the-board tax cut as exactly the wrong fix for the
> economy.
> 
> (Note at the time ... polls should a surge or bounce for Bush that he
> lost once the lustre of the convention dimmed from people's minds.)

Has it ever occured to anyone that maybe the stock prices are reflecting
individual companies expected earnings estimates?  According to Alan
Sinai, chief economist of the Boston Co, GDP for the third quarter (July,
Aug, Sept) increasted at only a 0.5% annual rate (and rates the risk of
a new recession in the last part of the year at 50-50).  Wall Street
has been downgrading 3rd Q earnings estimates and punishing those
companies (with lower stock prices).

Note also that the Wall Street Journal had an article a few months back that
conpared the stock markets results under Republican and Democrat 
administrations since 1900.  It showed that the stock market did slightly 
better under the Democrats although it was close enought to be considered 
equal.

I don't doubt that a lot of people on Wall Street (who are mainly Republican)
are afraid of Clinton winning, but I doubt that it will change them from
their usual short-term, base everything on the quarterly results, mentality.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Quayle and Lawyers
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:54:33 GMT

In article <Oct.1.14.47.03.1992.18130@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.145634.27923@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>> Theodore A. Kaldis:
>
>>> Let's see ... Mr. Frank is, what?  A _LAW_ student (if I'm not
>>> mistaken) preparing to be a lawyer.  He wouldn't have a vested
>>> interest in repudiating the above claim, now would he?  Naw ...
>>> couldn't happen.
>
>> It is a common lapse in logic to suppose that questioning the source
>> of an argument is just as good as questioning the argument's validity.
>
>Would a lawyer who is engaged in trial work ever attempt to discredit
>testimony by questioning the integrity of the one who gave it?  Naw
>... wouldn't happen.  Pshaw!
>
>It is not necessary to always appeal only to logic when trying to
>convince a jury.

It is good of you to admit to your deliberate decision to be illogical.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Debate
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:51:31 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct1.123911.12944@linus.mitre.org> jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
>
>Clinton will (or so he said) debate Bush anywhere at any time!
>
>Unless, of course, there is a ball game on the tube!
>

Any sane human being would rather watch the Braves pound the Pirates
into the dirt they belong than be Up Close and Personal to GHWB!

(though perhaps less amusing and challenging than following the thread
of a GHWB argument.  Talk about Gordian knots!)


--
"I was trying to figure out which of my friends were hedgehogs, and which
were foxes...."
"Shakespeare wrote _King Lear_, NOT _King Leo_...."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:39:07 GMT

In article <r-_p=r-.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes ...
|> >Recently posted by Rini Clarkberg:
|> >> I stand up for life too.   That's why when I look at the picture 
|> >> on page 310 of The New Our Bodies, Ourselves and see the picture with 
|> >> the caption:  "Woman dead on motel room floor.  Her death was due to
|> >> an air embolism suffered during an illegal abortion," I want to cry.
|> >
|> >This is sort of like a murder - suicide.  The woman had no right to take
|> >away her baby's life and died while trying.
|> 
|> It is precisely this utter lack of compassion and disregard for other
|> people that makes abortion both as common and as needed as it is.  In
|> another form it shows up often as "stupid woman, she got pregnant so
|> now she should have to suffer the consequences".

If you want to show compassion and a high regard for other people, my friend,
the answer is not abortion.  It is a common myth that the Supreme Court's 1973
legalization of abortion caused any significant reduction in the number of
women's deaths due to complications from abortion, when in fact the numbers
are nearly the same (I can get these if you wish).  Furthermore, several
surveys, including one by Planned Parenthood, confirm that at least 90% of
women who have abortions do so not by choice, but because they believe they
are forced to.  That is, they would rather carry the baby to term, but for
financial or circumstantial reasons are compelled to abort it.  If only the
time, effort, money, lawyers, and other resources being expended on both sides
of the legalized abortion issue could be redirected toward allowing these
women to achieve what they really want, abortion just wouldn't be an issue.

By the way, the issue in this Presidential election is not whether or not to
have legalized abortion; it is whether or not to require taxpayers to foot the
bill for it.  Over 1.5 million abortions are now performed annually in the
U.S. -- how many do you think there will be when it's "free" (i.e. cheaper
than a condom)?

-- 
// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Health Care (III)
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:32:05 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel

harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>
>"When pollsters asked U.S. citizens if they'd prefer Canadian health
>    care over their own, 72 percent said yes. As for the number of
>          Canadians who'd choose the U.S. system: 3 percent"

In case anybody is wondering, the latter figure does exists and comes
from the annual July 1st profile of Canada ("Seeing Ourselves", etc.)
done by Macleans, Canada's (only) national newsmagazine (it is owned
by Maclean-Hunter, who also own a number of cable systems in the US).
The poll is conducted by Allen Gregg and Decima Research, who are the
polling masterminds for Bryan Mulroney and the federal Tories.

I've seen something like the 72% figure for Americans in the NY Times,
but I think that the actual question was, "Would you pay an extra
$1000 per year in taxes to receive guaranteed basic health insurance?"
... I don't know if people expect that private insurance would go down
by some amount to reflect that part of the risk has been removed from
their liabilities.  (That is the case in Canada and France ...)

>"`You've got to remember, you've got a waiting list as well, but it's
>not as obvious. If you're poor and you don't have insurance, you don't
>    go to a surgeon. In the States you ration by ability to pay.'"

Why does this quote ring a bell???  This sounds like something that
Jim Robinson of Motorola in Vancouver, B.C. wrote ... if that's the
case, do you have his permission?  (Just a technical point.)

> "In a 1988 Harris poll 90 percent of the public responded that
> everyone should be entitled to care "as good as a millionaire
> could get." Yet, health care in the U.S. is increasingly a privilege."

Shouldn't your worry be that all Americans get middle class care as a
minimum?  Canadians have the same complaint, wanting upper-middle/upper
class care for everyone just like on TV and in the movies, but they are
making those complaints from a different level upon which to base their
expectations ... middle class care is already our minimum.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
From: mci41087@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Occaisionally)
Subject: Re: So lets Get this Straight
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:55:30 GMT

As a pseudo-Christian (I believe the words of the New Testament, but the Old 
makes me...uneasy?), my personal view on the twins controversy is that there
are two possibilities:
 
1) There were two thee all along, and it was God's plan that the split occur so
that twins would be born. 

2) There was one sould which was capable of splitting into two.  

After all, the soul is the single most incomprehensible 'thing' imaginable (to
me, at least).  There may be a differing Catholic view on this, and other       
church views which contradict me, but please don't throw them in my face.  I 
believe in God, not in the church.

The word of God is written on our hearts, after all.

Matt I.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc