HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjyamamo@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca
Subject: Re: Required Reading
Organization: Data Structures Group, C.S. Dept., U. of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:26:24 GMT

In article <PUCCIO.92Jul28134805@media-lab.media.mit.edu> puccio@media.mit.edu (Jim Puccio) writes:
>
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| "My friends, we can and we will, never, never, surrender to what is right." |
>|     -- Dan Quayle, speaking to Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition          |
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

What I'd like to see with these quotes or maybe in SimQuayle is the
reaction of the audience after these great blurbs.

Did the audience catch it? Or did Dan have the audience in rapture and
did they cheer this statement (assuming a dramatic pause was given)?
What about the press which were present?

I would expect that the audience would fall completely silent and that
the press would be howling with laughter.

Peter
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: The Ad in the Post
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:49:19 GMT


Well, i saw a snippet of dannikins responding to the ad that the Florida
republican (its name escapes me) took out in the post. He said something 
like "Well, if youll remember in the primaries, this man supported Pat
Buchanon. So evryones entitled to their own opinion, I guess".

So who is this guy? Supports Pat Buchanon, then feels so strongly about
trying to get Bush re-elected that he spends $45,000 of his own money
to take this ad out in amny newspapers?

GET A LIFE, MAN, OR THEY'LL NOMINATE YOU FOR VEEP SOMEDAY.

-r

Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Finish the damn elections (for the economy)!!
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 05:49:59 GMT

In article <15506@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> fzchen@othello.ucdavis.edu writes:
}
} I wish the damn elections were over, period.  As it is now the
}economy is in a quagmire and I don't see it picking up until after
}the elections.  This post has nothing to do with indicators, trade
}defecits, or the stock market.  There just aren't enough jobs, period.

If you think the economy's going to pick up after either Clinton or Bush
get elected, you're incorrect.  Clinton's economic policy is: Bush is for
the rich, I'm for you.  Bush's is: I'll keep interest rates down.

I predict that Bush will win, but low interest rates won't help.  Since the
budget agreement in which Bush reneged on his anti-tax promise and the
recession started, Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, has
lowered interest rate 20 times, and it isn't working.

The economy won't improve until we replace the Fed with free banking, and
that won't happen until Libertarians get elected to office.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: dfriedman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (D R Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Quayle for President (Was Re: Request: Quote about Danny's daughter?)
Date: 29 Jul 92 04:36:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

>>
>>I'm hosting a party next weekend with a Dan Quayle theme.  I plan on quotes 
>>all over the walls, etc.  I'd like to make a "Quayle for President" poster, 
>>but haven't come up with ideas for a VP...any suggestions?
>>
>>Quayle for President!  Preserve comedians' jobs!
>>
>>..Mitch
>>

Quayle for President!  Publik Edukatun Wurks
Denny 
------
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dale-bass
Subject: Corky
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:30:35 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona

>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 

Cameron?  Does anyone call you Corky?

				--Blair
				  "Some people call me 'Wayne.'"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dale-bass
From: 13r43@math.ucrf.edu
Subject: Re: "What's New" July-24-1992
Organization: McGill University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 06:13:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.032824.6226@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <1992Jul29.030615.5926@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> >In article <1992Jul29.024403.5319@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
> >crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 
> 
> >#     The position of the APS is that the space station is not 'science'
> >#     and should not be funded as such.   I would just expect them to pursue 
> >#     other 'science purity' issues with the same vigour.
> >
> >They do pursue such purity with all such multi-billion dollar projects
> >in the budget. Oh, what's that? Astrology isn't funded by the US
> >government? Damn, there goes your arguement. 
> 
>      Do they?  I'm glad to hear that they will now oppose SSC
>      on the grounds that it is mostly engineering.
>      
> >#     So it is competition for dollars with other programs of more
> >#     direct interest to APS rather than the 'science-thing'?  I'm 
> >#     shocked.
> >
> >Well, you created this strawman, so it isn't suprizing that you are
> >shocked by it. However, since I never claimed it was solely the
> >competition for dollars, you lose. Judging the bang per buck of a
> >project certainly is a valid thing to do for the APS.
> 
>      At least be consistent.  Is it the 'science-thing' or is it
>      the money?  Or is it both, in which case they should vehemently
>      oppose astrology AND the SSC.
> 
> >#     Agreed.  However, it is disingenuous to say that it is any different
> >#     for SSC.  By the way, the hypocracy of the APS with regard to 
> >#     SSF and SSC was the original subject.  It still exists.
> >
> >Oh, the fact that the APS and you draw different conclusions about the
> >scientific merit of the SSC makes them hypocrites?
> >
> >The APS has reached the conclusion that the scientific gains of the
> >SSC are large, and it has a good ratio of science to cost, so they
> >support it.
> 
>      Or maybe there are a large number of members employed in that 
>      business.
> 
>      I don't see the AMA opposing SSC on the grounds that it will
>      not be a boon to cancer cures as claimed.  I don't see  
>      AIAA or civil engineering societies opposing the SSC on 
>      the grounds that it is too expensive to be justified by
>      great advances in engineering, as has been claimed.
> 
>      And yet the APS seems to object to the SSF on the grounds that
>      there is 'not enough science' to justify the project.  One can
>      only think that this is because they are worried about their
>      parochial funding.
> 
>      As an APS member, I call that hypocritical.
> 
>                                    dale bass
> --
> C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
> Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dale-bass
From: tordm@vana (Tord Malmgren)
Subject: seriously
Reply-To: TordM@VanD.PhySto.SE
Organization: Department of Physics, University of Stockholm -- Sweden
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:08:09 GMT


 is there nobody who thinks that Dale-Bass is a good spirit? I think he's
awesome! just take a look how he gets boring old and young farts off their
rockers in no time! it's just about time SOMEbody dealt with the incar-
nated hypocricy in the lonely world of academics, that, actually, DOES exist
to a certain degree, and don't bury their head in the sand!


/ A TRUE Dale-Bass fan !!! A BELIEVER !!!




Newsgroups: alt.fan.dale-bass
From: 13r43@math.ucrf.edu
Subject: Re: "What's New" July-24-1992
Organization: McGill University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:58:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.181723.226@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <25023@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
> >In article <1992Jul29.010055.3863@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,  
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
> >> 
> >>    NIH is being forced to fund study into chiropractry(?) along with the
> >>    other 'alternative medicine' approaches. 
> >> 
> >>    As far as astrology goes, I'd think that such widespread antiscientific
> >>    beliefs would be of great interest to those in the APS apparently
> >>    interested in scientific purity.  
> >
> >Scientific organizations generally do, and should, only take political  
stands
> >when their specific expertise lends special credibility to their claims.
> >What does the APS know that every congressman doesn't already know about
> >astrology?  And what do they know more than the AMA about alternative
> >medicine?  It would be unethical for the leaders of the APS to put
> >themselves forward as experts on medicine, even if they *do* know enough
> >to judge this particular issue.  That's the role of the AMA.
> >
> >I think that it is a credit to the APS, not a demerit, to point out that
> >they are selective in choosing issues on which to take a stand.  
> >
> >It seems like dale would have bashed the APS one way or the other.  If they
> >said nothing, surely he would point out that they have no guts to stand
> >up for what they believe in.  And if they ever did get up to complain
> >about funding for chiropractry, he would point out that they were butting
> >their noses in where nobody wanted them.
> 
>     Hardly.  I would applaud this with great vigour, and probably offer
>     any services I could render in this pursuit.
> 
>     Of course this is beside the point, to wit: The APS, an organization
>     of which I am a member, is being hypocritical in saying that their
>     objection to SSF is simply the result of SSF being justified
>     as science.   I suspect the true reason is a perceived funding
>     competition.  
> 
>     By the way, it is certainly not my aim to 'bash' the APS.  I enjoy
>     being a member.  I just do not wish to see my organization promulgate
>     hypocracy over such things as petty funding competition.  Support
>     of SSC is one thing.  I fully expect it, and cannot complain about
>     the society supporting the activities of a large number of its 
>     members.  Another society of which I am a member, AIAA, does the 
>     same for SSF, which I also oppose.  However, I find appalling 
>     an attempt by the APS to bash other programs under a hypocritical
>     pretext.
> 
>                                  dale bass
> --
> C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
> Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dale-bass
From: 13r43@math.ucrf.edu
Subject: Re: Space Station & APS
Organization: McGill University
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:56:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.004744.7401@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale  
Bass) writes:
> In article <1992Jul30.214339.38024@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> jmp1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JEFFREY MICHAEL PARSONS)  
writes:
> >Can anyone confirm what Sen. Grahm (Texas) said on CBS This Morning (7/30/92)?
> >I believe that he said that governmental funding of science research has gone
> >from a former (stable) 5% of the budget to 1.8% (1.6% without the SSC) under
> >the current Congress.  He noted that this trend appears to be continuing.  I
> >would also add that it is my impression that a smaller percentage of federal
> >science funding is going to physics.  Does anyone have a source which confirms
> >or refutes these facts?  Dale, what does your crystal ball have to say? :-)
> 
>     If he said it, it is likely true.  However, what it means and how
>     it was determined is anyone's guess.  
> 
>     I will point out that the portion of the budget due to things
>     like social security and medicare are rising rapidly and that we
>     a running a deficit that will probably be larger than $300 billion
>     and possibly $400 billion.  So the fact that it may be a smaller
>     percentage of a fast-growing budget does not really surprise
>     me.
> 
>     The numbers, if even true or fair, are hardly a justification for
>     ramming protons together at high energy for $10 billion, no disrespect
>     to the honorable Mr. Gramm.
> 
>     There was a very enjoyable discussion of the SSC on the PBS news
>     tonight.  For fans of the project, Dale Bumpers said that he probably
>     does not have the votes to defeat it.
> 
>                               dale bass
> 
> 
> -- 
> C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
> Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926

--
Legalize freedom: Libertarian in '92.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.dale-bass
From: 13r43@math.ucrf.edu
Subject: Re: What is Market Efficiency.  was Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: McGill University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 06:13:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.030006.5762@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <1992Jul29.023623.20043@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com  
(E. Michael Smith) writes:
> 
> >I give up.  Anyone know how to put this guy in a kill file?  
> >I've never resorted to a kill file yet, but I'm willing to learn...
> 
>      Yes.  /dale bass/aK.
> 
> >>     If you are going to insist on your definitions, please include
> >>     references so that we can be on the same page.
> >
> >Like I said, go take Marketing 101 ... These aren't my definitions.
> >You can get them from any marketing class...
> 
>      Like I said, I have given the standard definitions of efficiency
>      in economics.  Where are yours?  I am not willing to take your
>      word for it.  Appeal to authority as I have done. 
> 
>                                    dale bass
> --
> C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
> Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dale-bass
From: 13r43@math.ucrf.edu
Subject: Re: "What's New" July-24-1992
Organization: McGill University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:57:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.182755.426@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <25024@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
> >In article <1992Jul29.042544.7010@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,  
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
> >> 
> >>     How exactly does one quantify 'the amount of new engineering'
> >>     in a project comprised of components that have never been built
> >>     before?   With this in mind, how do you state that there is
> >>     more 'new engineering' in SSF vs. SSC.  Both sets of designers
> >>     have attempted to keep the technological risks of their 
> >>     prospective toys down.
> >> 
> >
> >At least for the SSC, the design emphasized known technology specifically
> >so as to downplay the need to depend on "new engineering." That was crucial
> >to insuring timely construction.  Surely as an engineer you know that it
> >is always possible to choose from a wide variety of materials and techiques,
> >some of which have proven track records, and others, though they might
> >promise increased performance, pose the risk of cost and time overruns which
> >might defeat the purpose of the project.
> >
> >Although I don't know exactly how to "quantify" these things, I certainly 
> >know how to judge two designs side by side to decide which one seems a 
> >safer design choice.
> 
>      The same has been done (several times) in the design of SSF.
> 
>      This 'new engineering' thread is probably not a fruitful thread
>      to pursue since a 'safer design choice' is not well-defined
>      in this context.  I 'know' that a space station can be put
>      in orbit that will satisfy the performance objectives.  I do not
>      'know' that such can be done for the SSC.  Which is 'safer'
>      in this context.
> 
>                                   dale bass
> --
> C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
> Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dale-bass
Subject: Re: seriously
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:20:23 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <1992Jul29.130809.17435@kth.se> TordM@VanD.PhySto.SE writes:
>
> is there nobody who thinks that Dale-Bass is a good spirit? I think he's
>awesome! just take a look how he gets boring old and young farts off their
>rockers in no time! it's just about time SOMEbody dealt with the incar-
>nated hypocricy in the lonely world of academics, that, actually, DOES exist
>to a certain degree, and don't bury their head in the sand!

	Well,  not too long ago,  some people dug a hole in a real beautiful
canyon near here (a real big hole that is difficult and dangerous to walk
past and impossible to carry my bike past),  and after that I went home
and read too many Edward Abbey books and had some personal problems in my
life flare up,  so I posted some things that were a bit extreme.  One guy
posts a message saying that he isn't going to read sci.energy anymore
because someone (everyone knows who it is) is being too much of a dick,  and
I felt bad about this cause I knew I was being a bit too extreme.

	Now I know that he might have been talking about dale bass,  so
I feel better about it.

	Can we figure out some way to automatically pick his messages out
of all of the groups and repost them here?  We really could use his
informed opinions from sci.energy and sci.environment.
-- 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dale-bass
From: 13r43@math.ucrf.edu
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: McGill University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:54:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.163351.27539@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <1992Jul29.160427.17369@cerberus.ulaval.ca>  
yergeau@cornu.phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:
> 
> >> ...so it seems that nuclear proponents
> >>would also benefit from a little more time so as to avoid building
> >>older designs if the newer ones are almost ready and are anywhere
> >>near as good as claimed.
> >
> >If you are going to build coal burners, better buy a CANDU right now.
> >If conservation and efficiency will do, waiting might be a good thing,
> >but one should carefully weigh the consequences (economic and
> >environmental) of each option.
> 
>      This is a wonderful idea.  Unfortunately, we live in a country where
>      Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) had to be changed to Magnetic Resonance
>      Imaging (MRI) because the former had the dirty word 'nuclear' in it.
> 
>      Wait till people 'find out' that there is 'radiation' from every
>      operating bulb in their house..
> 
>                                   dale bass
> 
> --
> C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
> Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dale-bass
From: 13r43@math.ucrf.edu
Subject: Re: "What's New" July-24-1992
Organization: McGill University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 04:33:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.203940.3199@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <25027@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
> >In article <1992Jul29.182755.426@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,  
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
> >> 
> >>     This 'new engineering' thread is probably not a fruitful thread
> >>     to pursue since a 'safer design choice' is not well-defined
> >>     in this context.  I 'know' that a space station can be put
> >>     in orbit that will satisfy the performance objectives.  I do not
> >>     'know' that such can be done for the SSC.  Which is 'safer'
> >>     in this context.
> >> 
> >
> >Well, the designers of the SSC claim that their design meets or exceeds all
> >the design objectives.  Why would you doubt their claim, based upon zillions
> >of hours of computer simulation, more than you would doubt the designers 
> >of the space station?  
> 
>      This is actually the point.  Design 'risks' of the SSC arise from,
>      among other things, never having made magnets of that performance
>      and never having put it together before.  Design 
>      'risks' of SSF arise from, among other things, never having put  
something
>      like that together *in space*.  I 'know' that it can be put
>      together on the ground.   Which is more 'risky'?
> 
>      *I* do not know, and I suggest that those here who claim or imply that 
>      they do are mistaken.
> 
>                                   dale bass
> --
> C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
> Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dale-bass
From: 13r43@math.ucrf.edu
Subject: Re: Blue hawks (was Blue Sky)
Organization: McGill University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:57:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.180428.29756@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <1128@kepler1.rentec.com> andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)  
writes:
> >In article <1852@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
> >
> >>Active illumination is not an option available to eagles.
> >
> >Is this obvious? Bioluminesence is at least theoretically possible, and
> >the question is can the eagle generate a bright enough light. I can't
> >think of bioluminesence which is bright enough but is there any good
> >(i.e. theoretical) reason why they can't, (perhaps the color temperature
> >of the sky is higher than what room-temperature chemical reactions can
> >afford?)
> >
> 
>      There is probably a severe evolutionary penalty for active illumination.
> 
>      In fact, it is my guess that the most inexpensive set would cost many
>      tens of thousands of eagle-years labor, imposing large weight and
>      aerodynamic penalties, and a whole bunch of standing around waiting
>      for radar to be invented...
> 
>                                     dale bass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
> Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dale-bass
From: jennifer@pyrite.SOM.CWRU.Edu (Jennifer L. Wesp)
Subject: Re: is this THE dale-bass ??
X-Post-Machine: universe.som.cwru.edu
Organization: WSOM CSG, CWRU, Cleve. OH
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 20:22:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.205447.1136@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> jennifer@pyrite.SOM.CWRU.Edu (Jennifer L. Wesp) writes:

>We have high hopes, but it deoends on Dale's cooperation, of course.

Well, the bad news is that Dale Bass asked the UVa news admin to not
create the group at UVa, so we have to be without him for a while.

However, again, I do recommend that the dale flamewars should be
cross-posted here, if only to help out killfiles. If there is traffic,
we'll be created at UVa.

Anyone have suggestions for an FAQ? I have a few goodies.



Newsgroups: alt.fan.dale-bass