HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Hershensohn: Hoist with his own petard
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:20:13 GMT

I'm just back from the "statewide forum" of United We Stand America,
the successor organization to the California Perot Petition Drive
Committee where I and many other third party candidates were invited
to share our positions with the delegates.

I appeared on a panel with Genevieve Torres, the Peace and Freedom
Candidate, and John Cortez, an independent running a write-in
campaign. Barbara Boxer declined to show up.  Bruce Herschensohn
was there too but he REFUSED to appear on the same panel with the
rest of us.  Instead he manipulated the organizers of the convention
into putting him on by himself with not one, but two warm up
introducers.

I don't know what Bruce thought he was going to get out of pulling a
stunt like that but it clearly backfired.  There were numerous
comments not only from the panel but from members of the audience
to the effect that they did not care for Mr. H's grandstanding.

This was first time I'd had a chance to meet Genevieve Torres.  We
have agreed to work together to protest the exclusion of third party
candidates from the fall debates.  I invite you to join both of us
outside the San Francisco Hilton on Monday evening, September 21st.
For further information please call my state headquarters at
1-800-894-JUNE.

/June
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:58:01 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <95358@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <12132@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <95203@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
# ## Funny, he didn't mention how it was standard practice for men of Judaic
# ## times to have not only a wife but several concubines, depending on their
# ## wealth. Promiscuity was accepted in Judaic times.
# 
# #No, polygamy was accepted, at least until the Babylonian exile.
# 
# Clayton, polygamy is culturally-blessed promiscuity.

Hmmm.  One man, five wives.  If all remain faithful to each other,
how do you spread diseases?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7859 talk.politics.misc:45728
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Help protest exclusionary Senate debates
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:05:56 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

Who is holding the debate? Can we flood them with phone calls to
try and get the exclusion reversed?

-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: War on Drugs
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:59:56 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <pm9krbo@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
|> This leads to the following questions in my mind:
|> 
|> 1.  What business is it of the government whether or not people
|> are getting "high"?  Why should they care what people are doing
|> in their free time?  In past days, many successful people have 
|> taken drugs, including alcohol, without it being a detriment to
|> society.  Why should it matter now?
|> 
In times of social upheaval, and economic problems, the gov't
needs a "valence" issue.  It seems they've conned a lot of 
people into rallying against drugs.  This allows them to play the
"never mind the man behind the curtain" game.  Don't worry about
decreasing intelligence or willingness to think, don't worry about
the homeless, don't worry about anything but what others do to 
themselves for entertainment.


|> 2.  Is it fiscally responsible for the government to continue
|> a massive war on drugs which has had dubious successes?
|> 
No, but then neither was spending $10,000 for hammers during
the cold war.  All wars have their profiteers, the names 
just change.

|> 3.  Is it worth it to give up our civil rights to have a "drug
|> free america"?
|> 
No, but the sheep are always willing to give up their freedoms,
especially when they're too stupid/ignorant to understand them, 
for the promise of security.

Later,
George

-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
From: Ed.Evans@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Green Network
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:07:00 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992

Are there any greens on this echo?  Several people are talking about
starting a green echo/conference dedicated to green politics/movment.
___
 X SLMR 2.0 #1708 X No Freedom without Wilderness!

--- Maximus 2.00
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7505 talk.politics.misc:44159 ba.politics:5090
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Phil Ronzone says he looks for dirty pictures (Was Re: ...harassing calls)
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:49:11 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <mike02501920807094451@batpad.lgb.ca.us> mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor) writes:
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >I still want to know what your interest in reading a.b.p.e
    >was in the first place. I think it is very relevant to the
    >discussion at hand, because it is the readers of a.b.p.e that
    >create the demand which the posters fulfill. You should not
    >be surprised to find images with a sexual content or a
    >component of nudity in that group, but for some reason, you
    >were not only surprised, but shocked enough to mount a
    >net.campaign against the poster.
    >
    >So, Phil - please tell us what draws you to
    >alt.binaries.pictures.erotica. Were you upset at the
    >boy-and-pony-show picture because it didn't have any big
    >tits?

Suckers. I was creating a GIF masher and wanted to have lots of different
GIF sources. Obviously, looking at nake females is a lot more interesting
that the latest cropped version of the mandril image or the tenth
scanned red Porsche.

And, Jesus, can't you fucking READ! I mounted no net campaign. When I work
at a company and some homosexual yahoo posts sexual content pictures with
underage people (children) of course I am going to do something.

The first message was to the effect of "Jesus Christ -- are you fucking crazy?
Do you want to get net privileges yanked for all of us?" I could see the
headlines -- major workstation company involved in child porn.

When the yahoo responded with a rude fuck you -- I told my boss (who enjoyed
the choicer specimens of abpe). When he saw the latest work posted ( a .dl
of two young boys sucking a pony) he turned white -- quite an achievment
cosnidering he's asian.

Do YOU think it is O.K. to post such things (i.e., the .dl) from a company's
systems? I don't.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: mspayer@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Mike Payer)
Subject: Is God a Republican ?
Reply-To: mspayer@PacBell.COM (Mike Payer)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 17:02:00 GMT


        I  watched both Bush and Clinton on C-SPAN today.  Bush's
        speech  went off fine.  Clinton's speech started out with
        technical  difficulties  (no sound) as he progressed  the
        speaker were giving a loud screech and then in started to
        rain on him!!!!!!!!!!!

        You Don't think God is a republican do you???????  :-)


	MSP - mspayer.pacbell.com
	
				......SOMETIMES THE DRAGON WINS
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:33:14 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <12168@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <95358@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>Clayton, polygamy is culturally-blessed promiscuity.

>Hmmm.  One man, five wives.  If all remain faithful to each other,
>how do you spread diseases?

One man, five male partners. If all remain faithful to each other,
how do you spread disease?

Brian

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cramer@optilink.uucp (Clayton Cramer): Message-ID: <12133@optilink.UUCP>
I realize it's difficult for a person as depraved as [Brian Kane].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: mspayer@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Mike Payer)
Subject: coincidence ?????
Reply-To: mspayer@PacBell.COM (Mike Payer)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 16:38:14 GMT

On page A6 of the Press Democrat from Saturday 9/6/92.

First article on the page tells of the discontinuing of funds to search
for a genetic basis for criminal behavior. Right below that was an
article about the arrest of Robert Alton Harris Jr for robbery . Just one
of those things that makes you go hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm.



      ____________________________________________________________
     /\                  Michael S Payer Jr                       \
     \_|                                                          |
       |      pacbell!pbhya!mspayer OR pacbell!pbecc!msp          |
       |                                                          |
       |   ____________SOMETIMES THE DRAGON WINS__________________|__
        \_/_________________________________________________________/
From: lancelot@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: A Recall Campaign on Wilson
Summary: Where do I sign the petition?
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 08:42:43 PDT
Reply-To: lancelot@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us

In article <1333300014@igc.apc.org>, jlohrmann@igc.apc.org writes:
> 
> I heard somebody on the San Jose Mercury has started a recall
> campaign on Wilson.  Is this true?  If so what do people think?


the header says it all.
-- 
Brett Breitwieser / KC6UPU @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA / grid CM86XX
lancelot@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us   (...netcom!cruzio!lancelot)
425 Ninth Ave., Santa Cruz, CA. 95062-3915 / (408)475-9156 voice
"Volo ut syntaxis mea splendescat in litore, veniente aestate."
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Bitch Bitch Bitch
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 19:24:14 PDT
Distribution: world               
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
> In article <95609@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> > In article <12158@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> # #As you can see, sexual orientation is not defined by this bill.
> # #Rape is definitely a sexual orientation; so is child molesting.
> # #Disgusting, immoral, horrifying sexual orientations -- but
> # #nonetheless, sexual orientation.  AB 101, at least, defined
> # #what it meant.
> # 
> # They're behaviors. Rape is not a sexual orientation. Neither is
> 
> Rape is not a sexual orientation?  Perhaps your dictionary has
> different meanings for "orientation" and "sexual" than mine.

Now we have to put up with your dictionary fetish, too?

> # #If you want NEA, YOU fund it.
> # 
> # Someone like Michael Jordan probably won't need social security. Do you hear
> # him complaining about paying SS taxes?
> 
> Of course not -- he's so rich he'll never notice the SS taxes.
> 
> # Many gay men will never have children. Do you hear them complaining about
> # paying for children's educational programs?
> # 
> # kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
> 
> *I* complain about them, and I have kids.


You complain about everything.



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us
[] Long Beach, California
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7613 talk.politics.misc:44734
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:31:19 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <8284.28995@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>, lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
> In article <12168@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <95358@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> >> In article <12132@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >> >In article <95203@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
# ## ## Funny, he didn't mention how it was standard practice for men of Judaic
# ## ## times to have not only a wife but several concubines, depending on their
# ## ## wealth. Promiscuity was accepted in Judaic times.
# ## 
# ## #No, polygamy was accepted, at least until the Babylonian exile.
# ## 
# ## Clayton, polygamy is culturally-blessed promiscuity.
# #
# #Hmmm.  One man, five wives.  If all remain faithful to each other,
# #how do you spread diseases?
# 
# Oh yeah?????? So how the hell do you explain that syphillus and
# ghonnereah were originally  *sheep diseases*????? get a grip on
# yourself....you're falling apart at the seams!

Not what I've read.  There is no clear evidence of syphillis in
the Old World before the Columbian explorations.  There is powerful
reason to believe it was brought back from the New World, where it
was rampant.

# Cramer you are such a jerk. Just how the heck old are you
# anyhow??? You talk like a 24 year old. And yu think that 4 out
# of those 5 DID NOT play around??? You think that they *did it*
# just for kids????? You are to silly to take seriously!!!!
# Womens physical proclivity toward unbridled and unmatchable
# sexuality is by far superior to men's. I don't believe for one
# minute that those males inovlved in polygamy had faithful
# wives...IMPOSSIBLE!!!! One woman alone has the capacity to
# totally exhaust 3 men. You're out of your mind pal!

It rather depends on the culture.  Many premodern cultures have
a very unpleasant attitude about women, in which women are kept
in a very subservient role, especially about sex.  Don't project
20th century attitudes onto a Bronze Age culture.

# #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
# Len
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Herschensohn response to Genis
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:10:11 GMT

In article <194mtuINNmej@news.aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
> Though I respect your positions and I think you would make a good 
> Senator, I wonder if asking for equal time is just a little bit
> un-libertarian. Why shouldn't the people who organized the event
> be able to do so in any manner they want. Why should they be obligated
> to give everyone equal time?

  Um Richard, I think you are overreacting to the word "asking".
There is a big difference between "asking", "demanding", and 
"forcing". There is no harm in asking for equal time, and using
persuasion to accomplish your goals. Running down and getting
a court order would be "un-libertarian"; I doubt this was June's 
method or intent.
 
> What is the total number of candidates running for the Senate? If 
> they each get equal time, how much total time does it take for 
> someone who believes that only the two major candidates are likely
> to win, and only want to compare them to get say a half hour for each?
>
> Suppose we require equal time for all candidates for all offices? Is
> this wise? Is it efficient? Is is libertarian?
 
  Key word is "require". Definitely not libertarian. Perhaps you are
confusing the Republocrats who pull that tactic all the time.

-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7612 talk.politics.misc:44733 ba.politics:5181
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:27:34 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep9.111320@wsl.dec.com>, gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
> In article <12167@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> |> You are perfectly able to be a homosexual in private.  You don't
> |> have to announce everywhere you go, and thus make it an issue to
> |> employers or landlords.
> |> 
> So, you don't wear a wedding ring?  Have a picture of your wife in
> your wallet?  Go to your favorite bar/hangout/coffee shop?

I understand that many homosexuals wear wedding rings also.  And
if I didn't wear one, no one would make any assumptions, either.

I walk around our engineering department, and there are pictures of
men on the desks of some of the men.  But these aren't lovers (these
are married men, with wives and children at home -- I've been to
their homes).  In some cases, these are pictures of a camping
trip, or white-water rafting, with their friends.  Even if they were
single, I wouldn't make any assumptions about these being pictures
of their lovers.

> |> The only myths I've swallowed whole were the ones about homosexuals
> |> being just like ordinary people, except for their sexual preference.
> 
> Right...  And of course all that thorazine that you swallowed as well.

Never had any of the psychotropics, sorry.

> |> You mean I should ignore what the homosexual community is clearly
> |> broadcasting?  I should ignore you when you say that the homosexual
> |> community is divided about sex with children?
> 
> Hah, it has been pointed out to you time and again that it isn't
> just queers who are divided about this.  How is that new
> glass roof in your home sinner?

Yes, almost daily there are parades put on by straights in which
child molestation advocacy groups march. :-)
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: ROSEBUD"S LAST WORDS
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:52:56 GMT

In article <65261@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
>Sadly, too few people realize that kooks like Rosebud were just what the
>60's were all about. Read "The Destructive Generation " sometime. Rosebud
>would make a great chapter.

Yes Folks! Don't Delay!!! Go buy your copy now after all Arthur
Hu (who?) must have been there since he knows so damn much about
it!!!

Tell us all Hu....is it there that you learned how to be a
world-class reverse discriminatory racist?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Help protest exclusionary Senate debates
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 00:06:46 GMT

The first of a series of debates for the 6 year Senate race is being
held in Long Beach on Saturday, September 12th.  There will be
another in San Francisco on Septemeber 21.  I am being excluded
from both of these debates.

The criteria used was to only include candidates who had received at
least 10% of the primary vote.  Since no third party in California
even has 2% of voter registration this effectively allowed them to
exclude all third party candidates.  If you believe this is unfair I
ask you to join me in a peaceful picket of these events.

I need commitments from people for the Long beach event as soon as
possible.  We're not going to proceed with it unless we can gather a
sizable enough crowd to make it worth while.  You're welcome to
carry a sign specifically condemning my exclusion or a more general
one protesting third party exclusion in general.  The event is at
the First Congregational Church in Long Beach and we need people to
commit to being there from about noon until 5 pm so that we can have
our picket set up before people start arriving for the event.

You can confirm your willingness to participate by sending me email
or calling my campaign headquarters at 1-800-894-JUNE.  You can also
call there to commit to the Sept 21st event in San Francisco, but if
you're local we'd appreciate your calling 415-554-0388 to save cost
of picking up those 800 number call.  Please make sure you leave a
phone number as we may not know for sure if this will fly until
friday.  There may be a sign making party on friday night of you
want help making a sign.  Please let us know if you'd like further
info on that.

I really need your help on this one.  If you believe that articulate
and reasonable third party candidates deserve the chance to be
compared side by side with their major party opponents please join
me next weekend to help make the point that the current format of
these debates is not what voters want.

/June
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7723 soc.motss:38954
From: jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,soc.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 13 Sep 92 17:27:10 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: -

In article <12272@optilink.UUCP>, walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) writes:

> Don't get me wrong, I am a liberal who believes that Affirmative
> Action had its place.  It was an attempt to right some wrongs.
> Unfortunately, it has been carried too far.  Mr. straight white
> male government worker often perceives other (blacks, women, etc.)
> government workers in low esteem because they did not have to meet
> the same criteria for employment that he did.  Resentment is
> created, despite the fact that these minorities may be exemplary
> employees.
> 
> I find it sad that some gays are now trying to get their fingers
> into this pie.  I don't believe that gays are mentally disadvantaged,
> and as such do not need bailout programs.  I can see it now:
> 
> Joe Worker A:  So you passed the big test, eh?
> Joe Worker B:  No, I'm gay, so I got an exemption.
> 
> With enough of this, the mass heterosexual subconscious will
> begin to think that gays are helpless incompetents, and far
> from the 'human' described above.  White people who treat
> blacks as human do so because black people are indeed human,
> and not because some law says so.  And as such, blacks and
> gays don't need 'special rights,' they merely need to be
> treated like everyone else.
> 

Gee, Mark I don't think I have ever heard of any GLB person asking for
affirmative action.  However, if your post is an example of how your
mind works, I think you should be pushing for affirmative action for
gays.  If any of the questions on the test required the ability to
reason you don't stand a chance and your best hope would be to claim
to be gay. (I also wonder what the poor Optilink grader would think
when Cl*yt*n answers every single question with; "Yes, but they all
support pedophilia".)

> 
> A few years back, I went into a very gay restaurant in
> San Francisco.  They would not serve me, because I was
> 'not their type.'  

Just what did you do that so marked you as so unmistakably hetero?

Jim 
Newsgroups: ca.politics