HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:49:25

I've got $50 that says the New Republic has or will endorse Clinton.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,sci.space
Subject: Re: WE ARE STILL HERE: THE 500 YEARS CELEBRATION
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:12:40 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Oct3.004131.7559@mont.cs.missouri.edu> rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) writes:
>MOST DISGRACEFUL OF all is the self)congratulatory hoopla under
>way in most colonial and neocolonial states. In 1992, the
>governments of Spain, Italy, the United States, and 31 other
>countries are hosting the largest public celebration of this
>century to mark the 500th anniversary of the arrival of "Western
>civilization" in the hemisphere. 
>        As planned, it will outstrip the bicentennials of the
>Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the
>French Revolution in scale and cost, and in the callous rewriting
>of history. The multibillion)dollar official extravaganza
>includes a race to Mars between three solar)powered spaceships
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>named after Columbus' Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria; a "Tall
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WHOA!! What the hell are you talking about here? I tend to follow the space
program very closely and I have not heard of this. In fact, then only craft
recently launched towards Mars was the Mars Observer, which is definitely not
powered by solar sails. This must be a mistake.
Anybody know otherwise? 


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Chester            |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Politically Incorrect      |"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us
Future Lunar Colonist      |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Viet Nam
Summary: Why Did We Get Into Viet Nam?
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:05:05 GMT
Distribution: dfw
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.


Simple question.  Why did the U.S. enter the Viet Nam war?

Please. Simple statements, documented if possible.
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: WE ARE STILL HERE: THE 500 YEARS CELEBRATION
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:02:43 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <81529@ut-emx.uucp> wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester) writes:
>>includes a race to Mars between three solar)powered spaceships
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>named after Columbus' Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria; a "Tall
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>WHOA!! What the hell are you talking about here? I tend to follow the space
>program very closely and I have not heard of this...

It's not mistaken, just out of date.  The Columbus Cup solar-sail race was
originally going to launch this year.  Funding problems -- aggravated by
the untimely arrival of a recession -- scuttled that schedule, and perhaps
the entire race.  (Some of the would-be entrants are still interested, but
as far as I know, nothing much is happening lately.  Certainly the Canadian
Solar Sail Project [which started as a race entry] is on hold until the
money situation improves.)
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3606 alt.rush-limbaugh:6757 talk.politics.misc:50032
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 7 Oct 92 12:29:31
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: usa
	<JMC.92Oct7111217@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU's message of 7 Oct 92 11:12:17

In article <JMC.92Oct7111217@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

> All that can be done is for the public to recognize the bias and
> to exhort the journalists to be more fair than they are and to
> criticize them when they are unfair.

Recognizing that journalists are people who have opinions is an
excellent idea: I'm all for abandoning the pretense of an Olympian
objectivity.  

But as long as we're recognizing the biases from the personal opinions
of journalists, let's also recognize the biases of the corporate
owners of the newspapers and television networks, and the biases from
the structures of how American journalism functions.

[To cite an example that Dr. McCarthy will undoubtedly recognize,
there has been a big fuss in the papers here in the Bay Area recently
about the sale of the local baseball team to a group of Florida
investors.  A great many people here are taking steps to try to keep
the team in the area.  And, as it happens, one of the principal actors
in that struggle has been the San Francisco _Chronicle_.  Their
coverage of these issues has been anything but impartial---but the
bias doesn't come from the personal opinions of the individual
journalists, but rather from a very explicit policy set by the owners
and the editorial staff.  The details aren't terribly interesting to
anyone but another Bay Area resident, so all I'll say for now is that
this isn't just speculation; it has been very well documented, and you
can read the details in any of several papers around here---but not,
of course, in the _Chronicle_.]
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:30:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.174313.1315@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
>In article <JMC.92Oct7111217@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
>(John McCarthy) writes:
>> 
>> Several surveys have shown that future journalists are mainly liberal
>> before they ever enter journalism school.  Students of conservative
>> inclination tend to choose other professions.
>> 
>> In a class of 20 in my daughter's first year of journalism school
>> there was not one who had voted for Bush.
>> 
>> All that can be done is for the public to recognize the bias and
>> to exhort the journalists to be more fair than they are and to
>> criticize them when they are unfair.
>> 
>
>Well here we go again,
>
>there is no doubt that most reporters are probably liberal.  But to prove
>bias there are two other things you need;
>
>1.  These liberals must control the content of the news
>2.  There bias's msut effect the content of the news.

If you sytematically studied our own local paper,
The Austin-American Statesman, I believe you would find both
points to hold. You certainly see the results of it in any case.

The bias in favor of Democratic candidates and liberal causes is
fairly obvious, in terms of the types of stories, and their content. (*)
As is their editorial position - they don't go for "balanced" opinions,
but generally print liberal columnists.
Today, there was a letter to the editor, pointing out a recent
issue that had a few Bush stories, all negative, and a few positive
stories about Clinton. 

(*) Good example of their bias: In this, the year of the woman,
Lena Guerrero, current Railroad Commission Chair(wo)man,
appointed by Ann Richards, is running for election to that position.
It was reported that Lena Guerrero, despite claiming to be a Phi Beta
Kappa graduate of U of Texas on her resume, was actually not a graduate
at all.  In fact, she was a "C" student, who was 19 credits short of
graduation. When this was disclosed, The Austin American-Statesman
ran the headline "Guerrero finds out she wasn't a graduate", 
reciting as fact her own story that she didn't know.
(Despite how incredible her own story was.)

It was two weeks before she (kind of) admitted she had been lying
on her resume (without really saying that), by apologizing and
resiging as commisioner. And yet - get this - she's still running
for office.  The American-Statesmen's reports never have stated
the obvious, and generally have just reprinted the Guerrero campaign's
own defense as well as their attacks on her opponent.
 
Pat
	Bill Clinton: The Status-Quo Candidate
From: orwell@reg.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: History of The Pill (Errata Note)
Date: 14 Oct 1992 19:46 PDT
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: reg.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) (October 9/92):
>Interesting side note: the pill was originally developed by a Catholic
>(a priest in fact if I remember correctly) as a fertility drug.  It is
>still used for that purpose.  It works by suppressing ovulation, but
>when you stop taking it, the ovaries try to make up for lost time in a
>sense, and ovulate with a vengeance (so to speak), making the woman more
>fertile.  This one reason why it so important not to forget to take the
>pill.

This account is not accurate.  It is generally acknowledged that there were
3 key figures in the development of the birth control pill:

1)  Carl Djerassi, the organic chemist.  (Djerassi has just
    published his autobiography -- "The Pill, Pygmy Chimps, and
    Degas's Horse")

2)  Gregory Pincus, the biochemist.

3)  John Rock (sp?), the clinician.  This is who Mr. Fordyce is
referring to.

John Rock was indeed a devout Catholic at the time he did his work; he
did observe "rebound" effects in ovulation in certain clinical studies
which gave a clue to the development of the pill.  I am not certain
whether he worked on fertility drugs, but I do know that he was
strongly motivated to develop an effective contraceptive for *married*
couples (no premarital sex for good Catholics!) because he had
observed in his medical practice the destructive effect of too many
children on marriages; he believed that the pleasures of sex, creating
a strong emotional bond between husband and wife, had to be made
possible without unwanted pregnancies. 

There was an interview with John Rock in Esquire magazine 5-7 years
ago (if memory serves, the interviewer was Sara Davidson),
not long before he died (he was in his mid-nineties).  He commented
something to the effect that his former beliefs in the literal
truths of the Catholic Church had disappeared
and that he no longer considered himself a Catholic.

Ron Balden
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3614 alt.rush-limbaugh:6785 talk.politics.misc:50105
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:40:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

> I've got $50 that says the New Republic has or will endorse Clinton.
                                          ^^^

I've got $50 that says my name is "John." All sucker bets in my favor
will be taken, without prejudice.

John
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Summary: So tell me something that *means* something.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:29:14 GMT

In article <JMC.92Oct7111217@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Several surveys have shown that future journalists are mainly liberal
>before they ever enter journalism school.  Students of conservative
>inclination tend to choose other professions.

Name 'em.

>In a class of 20 in my daughter's first year of journalism school
>there was not one who had voted for Bush.

When was your daughter's first year of journalism school?  If it was last
year, that's simple math -- not very many people who were 20 in 1991 would
have been old enough to vote in 1988, by my math...

>All that can be done is for the public to recognize the bias and
>to exhort the journalists to be more fair than they are and to
>criticize them when they are unfair.

Maybe their (the public -- you know, us?) standards of what's fair and what
isn't are different from yours?

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
             The opinions presented herein are *mine*, not Rice's.     
  (Except for this one:  BEAT THE *&^%$#@! OUTTA TEXAS!!! We both share that.)
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Summary: Aha! 
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:20:49 GMT

In article <JMC.92Oct7150638@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I think her first year of journalism school was 1988, but it may have
>been 1987.  They were old enough.

If it was 1987, there's a real good reason none of them voted for Bush, at
least not as a Presidential candidate -- he wasn't the Republican nominee
for that office until 1988...

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

              Hit this .sig and win a free trip to Dewalt, Texas!
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3719 sci.econ:8046 alt.censorship:8016 soc.college:4243 talk.politics.misc:50689
From: cjp@megatek.com (Chris "Systems Stud" Pikus)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,sci.econ,alt.censorship,soc.college,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: High costs of college education
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:33:14 GMT
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> In <FDa8RB3w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> bmb@bluemoon.rn.com (Bryan Bankhead) writes:
> 
> >Hey, why not? we fund K-12, why not 13-16?
> 
> Also, how many degrees do we give out for free.  I have a sister-in-law
> who is on her third degree and counting.
> 
> -- 
> Mark

	Wow, counting after three college degrees. Better get her some
remedial help; most four-year-olds don't even have a degree and can
count.


-- 
Christopher J. Pikus,        | "Forgive me for not knowing about El Salvador. 
Megatek Corp., San Diego, CA | Like it's not like I'm ever going to go to Spain
INTERNET: cjp@megatek.com    | or anything."	  -- "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3930 sci.environment:12091 talk.environment:4264
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Plutonium Ship to be Followed
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:13:14 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <Greenpeace.16Oct1992.1624@naughty-peahen.org>, Greenpeace via Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>"Despite the apparent waning of the nuclear arms race,
>commercial plutonium production threatens to capsize any hopes
>for nuclear non-proliferation in the coming century.  Rather than
>allowing the creation of a global market in plutonium, all
>nations should band together to stop nuclear proliferation and
>plutonium production.

I suppose that the question of whether the plutonium in question is
weapons-grade isn't important, right?  The fact that if it's NOT weapons-grade,
then one can just as easily enrich uranium as separate the desired isotopes
from the plutonium is also irrelevent, right?

I don't know which is the more disgusting alternative:  That Greenhype really
doesn't understand this, or that they DO understand this but resort to this
sort of ecoterrorism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 14 Oct 1992 21:59:44 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

In article <98657@bu.edu>, tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes) writes:
|> In article <MATT.92Oct14122845@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
|> >
|> >And just for the record: can somebody please explain, preferably in
|> >words of few syllables, why it is worse to participate in a protest in
|> >London than it is to participate in a protest in Washington that will
|> >then be shown on television in London?  I just don't see it.
|> 
|> Same reason the Blue Jays got upset when Dennis Eckersley struck out a 
|> guy and pumped his fist in the air.  You just don't do it.  Bad form.

The same reason China would like us to send all the Tienamann Square
protesters back to China.  Demonstrating here was bad form.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3810 talk.environment:4180 alt.rush-limbaugh:7209
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,talk.environment,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why we shouldn't worry about man's production of CO2
Keywords: carbon dioxide
Date: 11 Oct 92 16:43:45 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Oct5.165105.2170@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
|In article <1062@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|>letter on this subject in the October 5, 1992 issue of "National Review"
|>that deserves careful consideration:
|
|Indeed it does. Lets suppose that I accept each of the author's
|points, numbered 1 - 8.  Professor Van Zandt clearly doesn't know too
|much about dynamic equilibrium.

Man oh man, are you full of yourself.  Perhaps the professor understands
dynamic equilibrium perfectly well, but doesn't consider it relevant on the
available evidence.

|The changes he accepts and/or claims as facts:
|	
|	200 billion tons of non-human C02 production
|	6 billion tons of human C02 production
|
|	human production/non-human production = 3%
|
|and in addition:
|
|	0.04% -> 0.06%   = 0.02 / 0.04 * 100 = 50% change in C02 %
|
|Anyone who accepts that notion that the earth is a system in dynamic
|equilibrium, a change of 50%, driven by a 3% increase in C02
|production represents a change of alarming magnitude.

You are assuming that the change was driven by the 3% increase.  They may
in fact be unrelated.

|How alarming is difficult to say, of course: we don't know as much as
|we'd like about the magnitude of typical C02 fluctuations in the
|absence of human C02 production.

Bingo.

|However, most people who study ecosystems will tell you that changes on
|this scale *typically* (not uniformly, but typically) signal fairly drastic
|changes in the way an ecosystem functions.

Nonsense.  Carbon dioxide is a trace gas.  Large changes in its
concentration might make little difference (as the evidence suggests).

|Van Zandt is really taking advantage of the our tendency to hear small
|numbers (3, 6, 2, 1, whatever) and say "big deal". Maybe he should
|garden some more, and see what tiny changes in environment do to his
|food. Maybe then he wouldn't be so blase about 50% changes in CO2
|levels or adding 3% more C02 to the atmosphere each year.

First off, man's carbon dioxide production didn't start in 1950.  The
supposition that carbon dioxide is so delicately balanced such that man's
small input will throw it completely out-of-wack is not supported by the
known facts.  If it were as delicately balanced as some environmentalist
suggest, any of several of the larger volcanic eruptions in history would
have ended life on the planet.

And as a long time gardener, I recommend you take your own advice.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: The "Education" President
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:58:35 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com

In article <1992Oct13.035941.18547@mont.cs.missouri.edu>  
harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
> The Decline of America: The "Education" President
> 
> Of the 19 major industrial nations,the U.S. ranks:
> 
> 17th in public spending on education.
>  1st in private spending on education.
> 
More cooked numbers.  

1) The US is at or near the top of *absolute* spending on education, and  
somewhat lower in terms of *percentage of GNP*.   Because the per-capita  
GNP of the US is higher on a puchasing power parity basis, we can spend a  
lower percentage of our income on education while still spending more in  
real dollars.

2) The poster confuses the application of resources with the creation of  
results.  The US increased public school spending during the 80's by an  
appreciable amount, but observed little or no increase in standardized  
test results.

3) I don't much care who signs the paycheck of teachers--the state or a  
private company--as long as reasonable numbers of children are educated.  

--
Don McGregor | Life is like high school, only with money and guns.
drm@esl.com  |
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3696 alt.politics.elections:15902 alt.politics.bush:8453 alt.politics.clinton:9440 talk.politics.misc:50620 talk.abortion:41691