HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Death of America
Keywords: I just happened to find an abandoned thread and...
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:48:29 GMT

In article <13DEC199219304722@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
>Let's see: Move all the manufacturing out, since it's cheaper to
>produce overseas. Cut American incomes in tenths, since they're 
>overpaid according to market principles. Ah yes I see, but...

the destruction of the manufacturing base is the problem, not the solution.
i for one have never said otherwise.

and north americans are overpaid. but there's no need to cut our
incomes -- inflation will take care of that in time.

>
>  Who's going to buy the products produced abroad since the
>  American Market is being destroyed??

the importance of the american market is unfortunately over-estimated.
this isn't the 50's any more. there was a time not long ago that the US
of 75% of the world's GDP. it is nowhere near that now. when/if europe
finally gets its act together and forms its union, we won't even be the
largest any more. and that's just now -- wait a few years.

>And as a reminder, even Ross Perot never covered dealing with the
>Federal *Debt*, only austerity measures for resolving the yearly
>Federal Deficit -- which would have taken too long to accomplish to 
>make any difference, anyhow. (As I was saying Charles.)

as *you* were saying?
don't get me wrong, the poetry was cute, the quotes were nifty and i'm
glad you're now actually discussing this, but....

>And no one
>is willing to bring state & local debt into the analysis for fear
>that the lenders will all die of a heart attack.

true and sad.
though some states appear to be trying to do something about it..

>
>The "simple sad fact" is... (as Broward Horne would put it)
>
>   America is a corpse on life-support now. Rather than live
>   with all the pain, let's pull the plug and get on with it.

is he wrong?

>
>The quicker it's dead, the quicker the new Phoenix will arise. Easiest
>way to do that is use emergency powers to implement centralized universal 
>health, universal education, right to food and shelter, infrastructure
>programs, etc. -- you know, The Soviet Model. Congress will back it, no
>problem. And we still have military dominance so no one will mess with
>us in the process. Unless we wait. 

in my mind, that isn't pulling the plug at all. that's degrading the
body so that it dies even without life support. pulling the plug would
be quitting the socialistic garbage cold turkey. unless you mean the
death of the country. i'd rather see the death of the econo-political
system that got us here -- there's nothing wrong with the country
itself.

p.s. your description sounds as much like canada as it does the soviet union.
i am told they want to pass a bill there guaranteeing the "right to
shelter". perversion.

--
charles
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Bob Novak, Incompetent Pundit
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:29:11 GMT

Hey, Bob--you're a fool!

First Mssr. Novak predicted that Clinton was out even before
the NH primary. Then he predicted that Clinton was out after
losing the NH primary. Then, throughout the campaign, he
made repeated predictions that Clinton was not a contender--
even, mysteriously, right after the Democratic Convention,
when Perot dropped out and the stats were Clinton 55% to Bush's
35% (a number that Bush, by the way, only raised 2.5 points
throughout the rest of his "campaign"). Finally, on the eve
of the election, Novak grudgingly predicted during a round-table
discussion with other pundits that Clinton would
"eke out" a victory by no more than 30 electoral votes, a number
that was only 170 votes short of the truth (an error of 700%);
for comparison, the smallest margin any other pundit predicted
during this discussion was 150 votes.

In short, Bob Novak is incompetent. Unfortunately, unlike
incompetent presidents, there doesn't seem to be anything we can
do about incompetent pundits except ignore them, which is what
I've started to do and urge everyone else to do as well. Maybe
the folks at CNN will finally wise up and get somebody in there
to replace him that has at least a marginal grip on reality.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 10:04:50 EST
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Health insurance stuff
Distribution: world
 <lifup1INNak8@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <lihgi6INNb2h@spim.mti.sgi.com>
 <lii39iINN114@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>

In article <lii39iINN114@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David
Chase) says:
>
>In article <lihgi6INNb2h@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike
>Polen) writes:
>>The problem is that the health insurance companies make their money on a
>>percentage of the medical dollar spent.  It is against their best interest
>>to hold down costs.
>
>Ack.  I had missed that point.  This is one reason (there are others)
>AT&T funded Bell Labs -- if you are a publicly regulated monopoly, one
>way to increase profits is to increase expenses and collect a
>percentage on top of that (so a cynical former AT&T employee related
>to me).

This sort of cost based system hasn't been in place for a decade
or so now.  Most insurers now aggressively bargain with hospitals and
doctors over the fee structure.


>>It's nice to keep trying to blame high health insurance on the poor,
>
>I take it all back, assuming that the usual suspects will supply
>figures blaming the poor if any exist.
>
>One slightly related question -- how many people (nowadays) have a
>regular doctor?  About a year ago I went to an urgent care clinic for
>an urgent sinus and ear infection, and did follow-up (less urgent)
>through the clinic where our pediatrician works.  It was pretty clear
>that the urgent care clinic cost more for less service.  I read
>somewhere (don't know where) that this pattern of getting medical care
>is more common than it used to be, and it is clearly not the cheap way
>to do it.
>
>(Note that this is not unlike what poor people are accused of doing.
>"Urgent care" is not as expensive as ER, and it probably makes sense
>to reserve ER for people near death, but UC is not cheap.)

I think the most recent number indicated that about 80 percent of
Americans report that they have a regular source of physician care.




Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: rlshuck@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Robert L. Shuck)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 09:08:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.074332.19648@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <71739@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
>>Here's another one...
>>
>>"The gay science of genes and brains" Economist Dec 5, 1992
>>
>>Researchers in the field doubt the oft-repeated figure that one in
>>ten men is gay; they think that people whose sex lives are
>>exclusively homosexual make up about 4% of the adult men and less
>>than 2% of adult women.
>
>Quite true around 4% of people are kinsey 6's, however the world is
>not composed of only 0's and 6's. Try taking out the "exclusively
>homosexual" and see what you get.
>
>>Don't give us the "that data can't possibly be valid" crap unless you're
>>willing to admit that the 10 percent figure is certainly baloney if
>>4 percent might be wrong. 
>
>No both are correct the numbers just refer to different things. 
>
>>There are no surveys that show 10 percent, most
>>show much smaller numbers. 
>
>No one is claiming that 10% are exclusively homosexual, 10% are
>largely homosexual.
>
>>Why not just admit it's 2-4 percent, and get on with it?
>
>Because the lgb communitee isn't made up of only exclusive homosexuals.
>-- 
>------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
>\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
> \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
>  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64474 soc.motss:52590 alt.sex:39694
From: scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 16 Dec 92 06:44:38 GMT
Organization: BASIS International, Ltd., Albuquerque NM USA

In article <BzByrF.45u@cs.dal.ca> lazarus@ug.cs.dal.ca (Chuck Turner) writes:
>The question is (and I think this is the REAL question) is 10 PERCENT
>magazine going to have to change its title or not?

It doesn't matter.  Even if there was only *one* homosexual on the
entire planet, he'd still be able to kick Clayton's sorry ass.

-- 
Scott Amspoker                       |    
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM |  Too bad ignorance isn't really
                                     |  bliss.  Then it could be outlawed.
scott@bbx.basis.com                  |
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64873 ca.politics:10440 ba.politics:7815
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: "HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:56:42 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1go46oINN8n2@copland.crhc.uiuc.edu>, pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan) writes:
> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >Rape victims had no choice, and neither do molestation victims.
> >Though I expect lots of homosexuals to argue about the latter.
> 
> There you go again: spreading your bullshit lies that gay men support
> child molestation.

Of course they don't.  They just define child molestation in peculiar
ways, such that an adult manipulating a child into sex isn't 
molestation.  Here's an example from recent email received from a
homosexual in Britain: "I regard child molestation as being forcibly 
performed by an adult!"  Therefore, if an adult manipulates an
eight year old with promises of expensive gifts or candy into
sexual activity, it's not "really" child molestation.

> Paul Ryan                  (pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu)     1308 West Main St.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64530 soc.motss:52669 alt.sex:39731
From: pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 16 Dec 1992 14:33:42 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: copland.crhc.uiuc.edu

Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:

>Researchers in the field doubt the oft-repeated figure that one in
>ten men is gay; they think that people whose sex lives are
>exclusively homosexual make up about 4% of the adult men and less
>than 2% of adult women.

Arthur, don't you ever listen?  The Kinsey study that the number 10% 
comes from says the exact same thing: 4% of men experience lifelong
exclusive homosexuality, another 6% (totalling 10%) experience a 
strong preference for men that lasts for at least one 5-year period of
their lives.

>Don't give us the "that data can't possibly be valid" crap unless you're
>willing to admit that the 10 percent figure is certainly baloney if
>4 percent might be wrong. 

Don't give me any more numbers until you go back to high school and learn
how to read a study.

>There are no surveys that show 10 percent, most show much smaller numbers. 

I would be delighted to mail anyone who requests it a copy of the Kinsey 
study.  Send me e-mail.

>If it's so darned unimportant, then why keep repeating an obviously 
>erronous and politically motivated 10 percent?

1) It is not obviously erroneous, you're deliberately misunderstanding it so
   you can say it's wrong.

2) Because Clayton is dancing around the net twisting these statistics to
   erroneously prove that I am a child molestor.

3) Because it is one part of an important point: we are not a group of 
   freaks, we are a randomly chosen cross-section of America, and most
   people know one of us.  If you think you don't, you might want to
   ask yourself why he's afraid to tell you.

>Why not just admit it's 2-4 percent, and get on with it?

Why not just admit that this is a thinly disguised attempt to marginalize
gays and that you're a prejudiced homophobe?

Will I be easier to ignore after you prove I don't exist?

Why not just examine your own motives?  What exactly is it that leads you
to spend hours every day trying desparately to prove that we are a smaller
group of people than we think we are?  What exactly is it that makes this
above all other debates your pet cause?  

Paul

-- 
Paul Ryan                  (pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu)     1308 West Main St.
Center for Reliable High-Performance Computing     Urbana, IL 61801
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign         (217) 244-7179
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:33:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.225428.14866@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>
>>>Our doctors are happy (in fact, disturbingly comfortable from 
>>>what I've seen in my circles);
>>
>>would you care to describe what the term "disturbingly comfortable"
>>means in a free society? 
>
>Sure ... they and their colleagues that I've met are probably the 
>last people that I can imagine to take off in a supposed "green card
>stampede"

well of course that's the case, because those who want to leave, leave!
and given your obvious political preferences, why would they bring
up such a subject with you anyway? seriously, i don't mean to be rude,
but you have shown a particular way of thinking, which is fine,
but do you really expect that someone who thinks as i do and who has
not left yet would bring up the subject unless she wanted a fight?
and in front of other colleagues?

>for them), get the residency to get more "benefits" (uh -- ya turnin'
>red? (-;))

hardly.

>are looking for a "socialist redistributor bogeyman" ... wrong number.

see the above.

>
>gld (that commie red tory! (-;)

i, for one, never called you any such thing. i just called you a socialist.
that's not rude, is it?

--
charles ("that mccarthyist")
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: guest@veronica.cs.wisc.edu (Guest account)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:28:52 GMT

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
 [deleted]

note the newsgroups line and edit it if you followup!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,soc.motss
From: chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask)
Subject: Re: "HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Reply-To: chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask)
Organization: Me, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 20:53:31 GMT

>cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>>Work on your reading skills, fool.  
>
>>Why is that homosexuals are not only liars, but ignorant as well?
>

I have been trying to think of a coherent reply to this for a few minutes,
but all I can come up with is:

THIS IS THE ROOT OF ALL BIGOTRY

Here we have a person who (apparently) believes that all members of a vast
group are identical.  If he had said "Why is it that blacks..."  "Why is it
that women..." or  "Why is it that Leopard Frogs..." it would be even
easier to flame him, but gays are still a subject noone wants to associate
with, for fear they will be assumed gay (assume away, Clayton.  Personally
I'd be worried if a spagetti-dick like you DID approve of me).

This post really isn't for  Clayton, anyway.  People like that are too far
away from reality to bother talking to.  The rest of you, think about how
ridiculous it is to make up blanket-definitions for a large number of
people. (Why is it that all Fords have vinyl seats?)

-chris blask

"Engage brain before starting mouth." - operations manual which should be
	delivered with each human head.



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:63884 talk.politics.drugs:7905
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Date: 15 Dec 1992 01:28:53 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec13.174624.2861@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
|> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
|> >gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
|> >>
|> >>In metro New York, the Bay Area, L.A. and most other well-developed areas
|> >>you can ring up US$200-300 in tolls a year; I rang up $5 over two days of
|> >>interviews between NYC and Westchester County just outside city limits.
|> >
|> >you've picked the absolute worst example areas in the whole US.
|> 
How in the world can you ring up $200-$300 in tolls a year in L.A.  There is
only one toll bridge that I can think of, and it is not on the way to anywhere.
There are no toll roads, turnpikes, or whatever.

In the Bay area, you can also spend nothing in tools and still drive over 
15,000 miles per year.  Since SF is on a penninsula, only those going into
and out of the city from north or east are affected.  There are no
toll roads, turnpikes, etc.  Only toll bridges.

On the east coast, on the other hand, toll roads are a given.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:59:35 GMT

In article <12033@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
}In <1992Dec8.011334.4685@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Andrew V. Wells) writes:
}
}|In article <1992Dec7.151849.16775@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}
}|> Are you this ignorant?  There IS no military base in Somalia.
}|> And until we come in, at the direction of the UN and invitation of
}|> what passes for a "local government", there is no US military presence.
}
}|I notice you work for MITRE corp., which is a big military contractor.
}|Trying to protect the welfare you get from the government, right?
}|Say, why didn't we send troops to Somalia a long time ago, the famine
}|has been going on for more than a year.
}
}Oh wow.  You can't refute him, so insult him.  Are you saying that anybody
}who works for any company that has any involvement in the defense industry
}has no right to post on any subject involving the military?

Would you believe, a non-profit federally funded research and development center?
Only a fraction of our business is DoD...
From: 00rdharringt@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bo Gritz
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:28:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ball State University

In article <92350.071740KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>, KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
> In article <1992Dec15.050842.6183@microsoft.com>, leecr@microsoft.com (Lee
> Crocker) says:
>>Bo Gritz is an idiot who uses a 2000-year-old work of fiction as a
>>[Rest of anti-Christianity ranting and raving deleted]
> 
> You are too kind.  Really.  Do you realize that most of the Bible is FAR
> MORE than 2000 years old?  Really.  Come on, if you're going to slander the
> Word of God, you can do better than that!

I think he was just talking about the NT... varies... the OT is really old...
I've head about 4000 years old... of course it's been a hell of a long time
since I've been to Sunday School as I've pretty much disavowed the crutch...
I mean church...

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
|                Not a spokesperson - REPEAT - Not a spokesperson             |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: snuffy@zelator.in-berlin.de (Ronald_J. Bartle)
Subject: Re: Hey Washington -- Get off your Damn ASS!
Organization: Puplic-Access-Xenix-System
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 05:26:43 GMT
Keywords: -= WAKE EM UP == PASS IT ON =-

In <10DEC199200564880@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:

>Somalia ain't no War -- there's no enemy.

>So there's no need for yellow ribbons, pulling together
>in solidarity, or holding off on criticism till its over.
>In fact, even if it was a war -- why not criticize?
>(Bill Clinton wouldn't hestitate & probably while on holiday).

>So WHY is the military over there instead of a *cheap* 
>off-the-shelf deployable police force? And why isn't this 
>a primarily Peace Corp operation anyway?? You feds are expending 
>too much ruggedized gear. 

>So get the military out -- they cost too damn much. (Except
>maybe the military police.) And get the dang 100,000 man
>police force ready to deploy, we've got Haiti, Yugoslavia,
>Columbia and Peru to police up.

>TIMES A WASTIN. Bush, you and Clinton oughta call congress back in 
>and get a move on. And NO reason you fat-cat congressmen should
>be spending Christmas at home (GET BACK TO WASHIGTON). Let's
>spin up the economy by building a World-Deployable-Police-Force.
>And DO IT NOW. We haven't got time to wait for the debt bust us.


>	-= GET YOUR ASS MOVING =-

I aint too shure abouit the technical feasability of doings things
"your-way!" but I shure am shure u got your heart in the right place!


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 EMAIL: snuffy@zelator.in-berlin.de  			 Ronald_J. Bartle
 "Ron likes to be accomodating in Berlin"  (voice)+49.30.68963546
		  he even rents rooms!               Fax: +49.30.6860053
===============================================================================