HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Date: 12 Jan 93 00:01:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <8824.3410@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>, lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
# With regards to all this talk on sex, safety and
# condoms....guys and gals...THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "SAFE
# SEX"!
# 
# Everything you have been taught is a lie...start over again.
# 
# 1 week ago CNN ran a news story describing how they are
# testing for HIV antibodies by taking a saliva sample....and
# they say the HIV enters the saliva from the small amount of
# blood that seeps from underneath our gums.....ergo...french
# kissing is a death sentence......they also found that HIV
# lives for 7 days on dry environment ergo....sharing glasses
# is a death sentence.....if one sneezes or coughs into one's
# hand and then shakes your hand...because HIV is 10 smaller
# than the pores of your skin the HIV virus will sink into the
# 2nd epidermal layer wherein your capillaries terminate and
# enter the capillary via osmosis ergo...shaking hands is a
# death sentence. And because HIV antibodies have now been found
# in reasonable concentrations in saliva it is safe to assume
# HIV is there as well ergo....being in the way of a sneeze
# (which carries germs up to 50 feet from the point of origin)
# is a death sentence as the virus can enter your blood stream
# via your nasal membrane osmotically.

Once again, Mr. Bucuvalas has gone off the deep end.  There is
doubtless some small level of risk involved, but "death sentence"
is going a little strong, isn't it?  Especially because there 
seem to be other factors that dramatically increase one's risk
of going HIV+, besides just exposure.

# Lambskin condoms aree porous so they are out...hell just about
# everything to do with sex short of self gratification is a
# death sentence....now personally I dont give a rat's ass who
# denies this or debunks it....I wont grace that level of stupidity
# with a reply.
# 
# The information is there.....all you have to do is keep
# searching and you will find it too.....
# 
# The only alternatives I can see is: to cut off your genitals
# and throw them away; put salt peter in your food; or have your
# nervous system to your pleasure centers in your brain
# surgically severed. No kidding here...I am thoroughly
# depressed with the state of affairs concerning this
# disease....and if this sucker was manufactured..hopefully
# those who did it will catch it.
# 
# Len

Or, engage in a mutual monogamous relationship, and plan to stick
with it for a while (i.e., more than a week or two between different
sex partners).  Once again, Mr. Bucuvalas is off the deep
end.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66550 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11795 alt.politics.homosexuality:9107
From: daves@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Dave Stow)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: 7 Jan 93 09:31:08 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing at Lancaster University, UK.

In article <0DkZwB1w165w@fennec.com> flash@fennec.com writes:
>You have GOT to be kidding! Do you seriously expect anyone with a BRAIN 
> ...
>Homosexuality is NOTHING MORE than a behavior. One chooses to exercise 
>that behavior.
> ...
>is only my BEHAVIOR which places me in either category. Any other 
>definition is indefensible.

Whoop! Whoop! Excessive Use of Capitals Alert!

This is a man with an overwhelming insecurity and desire to express himself
with lots of CAPITAL LETTERS so that we KNOW that what HE says is the
ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

Shame he talks utter rubbish of course...

Dave

-------- daves@comp.lancs.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------
| Will you still suck me,    | #include <std.disclaimer.h>                    |
| tie me up and fuck me?     |                             ** Beard rides **  |
| When I'm 64...             | Whisky, Sex and Blues...                       |
---------------------------------------------- B5(6.5) f- t- g+ k+ s+ e r p ---
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66515 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11779 alt.politics.homosexuality:9097
From: flash@fennec.com (Jim Melton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 18:50:08 CST
Reply-To: flash@fennec.com
Organization: Fennec Information Systems / Orbital Data Haven II

judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- your name may vary) writes:

> So you're saying that some gays do seek help.  No big surprise, considering
> that they live in a society that basically hates them.  20/20 did a segment
> about "curing" gays last year, and despite the fact that this was a totally
> self-selected group of men who didn't like the fact that they were gay, the
> "cure" rate was still ZERO - *all* of them admitted to continuing to feel
> attracted to men.

[...]

> Sure - just look at the 20/20 segment.  Pretty pathetic, not being able
> to "cure" a group of gay men who WANTED TO BE CURED in the first place.

You have GOT to be kidding! Do you seriously expect anyone with a BRAIN 
to formulate an opinion on the subject of homosexuality based on the 
self-serving drivel provided by the national media? That group of ultra-
left bozos has an on-going love affair with the "gay" movement.

The fact is that until homosexuality was removed from the AMA's list of 
mental disorders that the "cure" rate was extremely high. Even today, 
there are organizations who boast "cure" rates of close to 100%. 
Homosexuality is NOTHING MORE than a behavior. One chooses to exercise 
that behavior.

If I am attracted to a woman (not my wife), does that make me an 
adulterer? How then can being attracted to a man make me a homosexual? It 
is only my BEHAVIOR which places me in either category. Any other 
definition is indefensible.


-------------------------------------------------
Jim Melton flash@fennec.com
Validated User    Fennec Information Systems
(512) 451-9769    Austin, Texas USA
-------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 09:16:09 GMT

In article <C057F4.842@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>>                          ...
>>The short version is being black is not embraced by most americans.
>>It is outside of our shared values. Continued erosion of our shared 
>>values will harm society. There fore it should not be given the same 
>>status as being white.

>the above had no signature

>I'm tired of arguments, so I will not bore you with things you have 
>probably already heard. But I do have a question. Do you *really* 
>believe that the civil rights analogy holds in the case of homosexuals?
>I want to know this so I tell can if you are simply being argumentitive or
>we you are stating beliefs you hold.  I don't think the analogy is
>100% valid. But I am willing to listen. My major problem is that the 
>difference between hets and gays is behavioral, not racial as is 
>the difference between blacks and whites.

First of all, that isn't at all clear.  The evidence is not clear at
this time as to whether sexual orientation is biological or not.  Unless
you're referring to behavior solely, rather than orientation, but that
doesn't work, since celibate homosexuals are discriminated against just
as much as sexually active homosexuals are.

Nevertheless, I can answer your objection in another way.  Replace
black/white with Jewish/Christian.  The difference between Jews and
Christians is behavioral, just as the difference between hets and gays.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Discrimination!
Summary: "leap of faith"
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:56:46 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <90196@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> In <9301090737.AA32689@localhost> buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
> 
> 
> 
> |mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer) writes:
> 
> |>I agree wholeheartedly. Discrimination is one area where
> |>government can govern not at all.
> 
> |Do you have any suggestion for ending discrimination or do you think that
> |discrimination does not occur?
> 
> It takes a pretty massive leap of faith to believe that there is anything
> that government can to reduce or eliminate discrimination.

It doesn't any kind of leap of faith - just a history book or
an encyclopedia.  Look up the entries under "Civil Rights",
"Jim Crow", "Segregation", "Integration".  When was the
last time you saw a black person forced to sit in the back of
the bus, or get off?  When was the last time you saw a black
person refused service in a public restaurant?

marc colten
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: archer@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Summary: Yeh Right!
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:57:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.210110.2027@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (Smokers are productive, but death cuts efficiency) writes:

>In article <ARCHER.724.726858851@utkvm1.utk.edu>, ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)                                  writes...
>>In article <1993Jan12.023858.7475@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
>>>And what about the courts, police, and national defense?
>> 
>>What about them?  Ask people to support them.  If sufficient people aren't 
>>willing to support them,  the majority don't want them, and they shouldn't 
>>exist.

>I have a two-part question.
>A) How will you judge if people will support
>them? By vote? Isn't "mob rule" what the libertarians are complaining about 
>now?

That depends on if participation is mandatory.

>B) What if people vote to reject them? Won't that mean we will have rule
>of the gun? Whoever can hire the most guns rules?

The main purpose of the state under libertarianism is to prevent the use of 
force to coerce.  If you hire guns to coerce, there is no bar to having a 
state that prevents you from doing so.

Note that I do not read t.p.m or alt.activism, and that I have removed the 
other groups from the header as we have wandered well beyond the charter.  
Constructive responses via e-mail are welcome.
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:29:32 GMT

In <1905@esl.ESL.COM> drm@esl.com (Don McGregor) writes:

>In article <1993Jan7.194924.16150@m5.harvard.edu>  
>borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:

>> To fellow Democrats out there:  like it or not, vouchers
>> are going to steadily gain in popularity, and it will
>> become increasingly difficult to resist them for much
>> longer, in my opinion.  They can be done well, in ways that
>> will help the poor and the working class, or they can be
>> done badly, in ways that will hurt.  If we let the
>> Republican leadership do it, it probably will turn out to
>> hurt the poor. 

>I don't see why a voucher program should be federalized at all.  This  
>sounds like an excellent project for several forward-looking states.  Four  
>or five try out different variations of voucher programs over the period  
>of a few years, and other states examine the results and implement the  
>best.

Now that's the most intelligent suggestion yet. Frankly, I don't
think the voucher system would do diddly, but since I only get to
help pay for it, and not use it (they're all through university)
I probably don't have a say.

We will probably need a lot more flexibility on all sides - govt,
taxpayers, teachers, etc. The NEA seems pretty adamant at times,
but then (as a sometimes teacher) I wouldn't work for those kinds
of salaries. I should have inserted industry in the list, they are
always looking for property tax breaks and yet they establish the
curricula by pressure if not directly. We train people for the
business environment, because we want them to have good jobs. If
we were to study the question, I imagine that we might find that
the most successful people were those with a classical arts
education, i.e., they were taught how to think, not what to think.


>The only thing the national parties should provide is support and  
>leadership for state parties and organizations.

>--
>Don McGregor | Double your pleasure, double your fun.  Xerox
>drm@esl.com  | your paycheck.
		
		Won't work - they use direct deposit.

Bob.
	
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: How big _is_ Texas?
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:15:48 GMT


In a previous article, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) says:

>In article <1993Jan6.110832.13836@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>> It seems that whan Alaska was being concidered for statehood, [...]
>
>When Alaska was being _CONSIDERED_ for statehood, students knew how to
>spell "consider".

Awwww....poor baby....he doesn't like the humor so he flames on the basis
of a misspelled word.

>
>> *...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   These are the REAL  *
>> *  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu/Kelley L. Miller  / /__\      Gay 90's!!      *
>> *-------------------------------------/____\-----------------------*
>> ***************** Oxymoron: Freewill Christianity ******************
>
>I am more inclined, rather, to consider the construction "friendly
>athiest" as an oxymoron.  
 ^^^^^^^

This idiot flames me for spelling, yet he can't spell a word right when
he has a model a few lines above it...

Pathetic.


 I am inclined to consider the construction "Theodore Kaldis" as 
denoting ignorance, extreme stupidity, and extreme intolerance of
anything the person labeled by this construction does not agree with
or approve of.


>But more to the point: no one that I know of
>is forced to walk through the door of the church.  You, as I, can
>choose to enter in, or else decline to, of your own free will.  Or
>perhaps Torquemada is still operating, undercover these days?

Did I ever imply that anyone wishing to enter or decline entering a church
had a lack of freewill?  No.  I simply comment on the concept that those
who most strongly embrace Christianity tend to loose touch with their free 
will, at least those of my aquaintence.


>
>[Calvinists: cat flames > /dev/null]
>
>BTW, you have trailing blanks after the last asterisks in the lines of
>your .signature file.

So what?  Is it your contention that leaving trailing blanks somehow denotes
some manner of deviance?  If so, you're sicker than any of the other posters
here have ever given you credit for.


>-- 
>The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
>my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
>believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>this would hold such views???       ||
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Not only do I not believe it, I am amazed that an institute as well thought
of as Rutgers would ever allow someone like you to be associated with it.
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   These are the REAL  *         
*  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu/Kelley L. Miller  / /__\      Gay 90's!!      *           
*-------------------------------------/____\-----------------------*  
***************** Oxymoron: Freewill Christianity ******************
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66692 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11918 alt.rush-limbaugh:13315 alt.politics.bush:15700
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Date: 8 Jan 93 13:33:41 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester


>: >>Comment if you like, but on TV just now, a documentary on scientists
>: >>studying Mount St. Helens claimed that the blast was the equivalent of
>: >>40,000 atomic bombs - more than all the nukes we've ever built as a human
>: >>race...
...
> I didn't claim anything.  I just reported, as close to verbatim, as what
> I heard on TV :)  It just seemed surprising that that kind of blast happened
> and didn't reak major havoc on the whole world for years (as would be us
> launching all our nukes).  It also gives me a lot of respect for how the
> world works :)


Sheesh, people, do a reality check (and don't believe everything
you hear on TV).

The Mt. St. Helens eruption was about 20 megatons.  This is a couple
thousand -- not 40,000 -- times more powerful than the bomb dropped on
Hiroshima (about 13 kT).  It is *not* thousands of times more powerful
than today's thermonuclear weapons.  Total yield of everyone's nuclear
weapons back before the end of the cold war was in the gigatons.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Special Bonus Quiz
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:30:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.013142.26432@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>Q: What is the difference between a Whig and a Republican?
>A: Time.

Q: What is the difference between a Communist and a Democrat?
A: Native Language.

Q: What is the difference between a Communist and a Democrat?
A: Degree.

Q: What is the difference between a Communist and a Democrat?
A: The Democrats still run the USSA.

Q: What is the difference between a Communist and a Democrat?
A: The Communists were more honest about their agenda.

Q: What is the difference between a Communist and a Democrat?
A: Under Communism, the government is supposed to eventually fade away.

Q: What is the difference between a Communist and a Democrat?
A: The Communists fought in Vietnam.

Q: What is the difference between a Communist and a Democrat?
A: I give up?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Libertarian heaven
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:01:01 GMT

In article <CB.93Jan5171603@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:

>Geff Underwood writes:
>
>   >There's a country that fulfills the dearest dreams of Libertarians: it
>   >has no government
>
>   Again?  This was refuted about a month ago.  You have the Libertarians
>   confused with somebody else.  Libertarians want a government police
>   force, government courts, and government military forces -- read their
>   platform if you don't believe me.
>
>   Some individual party members may well advocate the repeal of all
>   government, but they are not speaking for their party ...
>
>I wasn't reading about a month ago, but in my experience the most
>characteristic sentiment of a libertarian is the line "That government
>is best which governs least".  To me, that implies that the best
>possible situation would be no government at all.

        You are misunderstanding.  The libertarians want the least 
government they can get away with and still protect citizen's rights.  
Anarachy, just like a government with too much power, endangers citizen's 
rights.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66320 alt.politics.correct:6081
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:06:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.015215.1980@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.224144.10620@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu
>(Yamanari) writes:
>> 	What you are hitting on is what I have been saying for the last
>> 	two weeks:  Just because someone holds the opinion that X is
>> 	right or wrong does not make it so.  The only way to resolve such
>> 	a conflict is by majority consensus.
>
>Alas, this is just what was done in Germany in the 1930s (and in a lot
>of other places and other times with similar results).


	It has been done in all of societies for all of time.  Show me
	a counter example.  Nazi Germany, in fact, was moral dictatorship
	by an empowered group of fanatics.

	The morals held by the Nazis were, are, hardly the morals held by
	most of Germany.

>Sorry, I don't believe that majority consensus can override individual
>rights as long as the exercise of those rights does not do demonstrable
>harm to someone.  


	Or harm to themselves?  

	Answer me this:  Is it right and moral to force a chronic drunk
	(not a drunk driver, just a blasted-out-of-his-mind-all-day
	can't-keep-a-job, etc drunk) to seek treatment?  We do that,
	you know.  Just call up one of the local hospitals and ask'em
	who makes up a number of their patients.

	If you answer "yes," you are being inconsistent.  


>(Saying, "Having to live in the same society as
>people who don't follow my religion" does not constitute demonstrable
>harm.  IMHO.)


	Nor in mine.  However, since you skipped it in the last message,
	let me ask again:  If you do not define morality by majority
	consensus, how do you prevent moral facist control by a fanatic
	minority?  (Which fits your Nazi germany example far better than
	"rule by majority" does--by a whole lot).

-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism