HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The "education" President-elect
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:38:43 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 28838@news.columbia.edu, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1dfu58INNgkh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>>In a previous article, clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) says:
>>>
>>>I'll give you a hint: the "how're" is a contraction, standing for
>>>"how are".  *You're* familiar with them, I assume, as I *can't* imagine
>>>the concept *hasn't* or *isn't* being taught in schools.  If you
>>>*weren't* taught about them and they *aren't* familiar, *you'll* be
>>>sorry if you *don't* learn about them ASAP.
>>
>>BZZZZT! Wrong.  *We're*, *you're*, *I'm*, *hasn't*, etc. are all "proper" 
>>English contractions.  *How're* is NOT (pronounced "hower").  Of course 
>>they were trying to contract "How are".  However, it is not proper and is 
>>considered "broken" English.  Check any reputable dictionary.  In fact,
>>your news program might have a spell checker built in.  I'll bet you it 
>>accepts *we're*, *you're*, *I'm*, *hasn't*, etc., but rejects *how're*.
>
>Actually, there's a school of linguistic thought that argues what a
>native speaker of a given language says is "correct."  Since Clinton
>is a native speaker of the English language, "How're" is correct, even
>if it isn't necessarily mainstream or in the dictionary.  The goal
>of language is communication, and "how're" is not ambiguous.

I'm not sure what the original point was about Clinton's usage.  I don't think
that "how're" is good formal written English, but the contracton is perfectly
valid in colloquial speech.  You also hear "How's he doing?" quite commonly.
As a linguist, I would quibble about whether "how're" is really a case of
contraction, rather than fast speech reduction.  (Contraction is not the same
as fast speech reduction.)  But "how're" strikes me as being just as valid as
the pronunciation "should of" for "should have".  Everyone says it, but nobody
writes it.  Clinton, given his midland dialect, has a tendency to say something
like "har", with the "w" omitted.  It has nothing to do with education, and
everything to do with projecting an image as a speaker of a regional dialect.
You could argue the point, but I think that keeping the dialect was good for
his career in Arkansas.  It won't win him any points in some areas of the 
nation, but people don't usually cast their votes on dialect issues.  :-)

BTW, the nontechnical term "broken English" is usually reserved for a foreign
accent, rather than casual pronunciation.  If you think that the speakers of
a language should avoid casual pronunciation, then you are in for a very 
difficult life.  Watch what you say.  ;-)

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Excitement/Concern
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:45:35 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Nov6.152006.25567@risky.ecs.umass.edu> giovin@medr3.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.155826.15548@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>>In article <adams.720914090@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>>
>>>>Exit polling shows that over 50% of voters are excited about the prospect
>>>>of a Clinton presidency. This includes 20% of Bush voters (source: USA
>>>>Today 11/4). Give it up. Sixty percent of voters said that whatever
>>>>Bush was doing, please stop it. We will, and that is Clinton's mandate.
>...and ABC exit polling says that nationally, over 50% of voters are
>"scared" of a Clinton presidency with 25% of those people voting
>for Clinton...  So we're both scared and excited.  Hmmm... It sounds
>more like the start of a great roller coaster ride.
>
>Rocky Giovinazzo

For all of you who think life should be without risk, stay off the net.
You could get carpal tunnel syndrome typing.  By taking chances and not
playing it safe, we grow as human beings.  I assume that the same is
true of nations.  Isolationism could have kept us completely out of
World War II.

Think of the election as an engagement, and the inauguration as a
marriage.  I was certainly concerned about what my future could be like
when I got married, but it was also exciting.  Loss of a lot of freedom,
but getting what I hoped was more in return.

I think we'll know soon what kind of president he will be.  The choice
of his cabinet will be mighty interesting.  I have this insane hope that
he chooses the best people regardless of political affiliations.  There
are some Republicans who have class (Kemp, Koop, etc.) who don't have a
knee jerk reaction against someone who is a Democrat that he could work
with.  Gee, sounds like I've inhaled! :-)

May your lives always be interesting.

John
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
From: Monte Olsen <olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu>
Subject: Re: Amusing Technical Aside
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A727DBF18002A70D@reynolde-mac.ads.orst.edu>
X-Xxdate: Thu, 12 Nov 92 18:01:21 GMT
Organization: OSU Extension Service
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:59:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.084010.5005@wetware.com> drieux,
drieux@wetware.com writes:
>
>Why Thank you,
>
>I had not wished to 'write above' my audience....

Drieux,
Please, you're giving me too much credit. (Honest!)
;-)
Monte
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Don't Read Too Much do you?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:02:45 GMT

jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
] In article <1992Nov7.152731.15169@emr1.emr.ca> knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen) writes:
] 
] > I think there is some misconception in history here. The war has
] > been escalated by the involvement of North Vietnam Army and comunist world.
] > After the attack of 36 SVN provincial capitals and 5 major cities
] > failed, National Liberation Army suffered heavy loss (33,000 killed) in
] > Tet Offensive 1968; the ranks of Viet Cong evaporated. As result,
] > "MOST OF INSURGENTS IN SOUTH VIETNAM WERE ACTUALLY NORTH VIETNAMESE
] > SOLDIERS".
] 
] 	Who or what are you quoting.
] 
] > The Tet Offensive failed because there was no support from the populace
] > of South Vietnam; it meant that NLF burnt all their own men. Instead of
] > seeing things behind this event; peace activists told lie to the public
] > that it was an immoral war because it was a civil war. When being mentioned 
] > about this, the public started backing up; their conscience was not
] > behind a "immoral war".


Jeffery,

Its SAFE Now to read North Vietnamese Sources,
and to accept that what Kim has said is NOT
just the 'propoganda' of the Puppets of American Colonialism.

You could Start by taking the Battle of Khe Sahn.

And just work your way south through all the operational
material from BOTH SIDES.


This is America, and You will NOT be prosecuted for admitting
what even the NVA High Command has been willing to publish
in their memoirs...

ciao
drieux





-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.clinton
From: brianm@cc.gatech.edu (Brian N. Miller)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs, part II
Reply-To: brianm@cc.gatech.edu (Brian N. Miller)
Organization: College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:25:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.050530.13416@muddcs.claremont.edu> ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu (Eli Brandt) writes:
>
>The biggest cash crop given government-subsidized prices, yes.  The
>dollar value of the crop will drop drastically after legalization.

Hemp traded in the past years in Poland as a substitute for peat moss.
The price was under $1 per lb.  Lord knows there's an array of cheap produce
in your grocery store to remind u of what an agricultural product really costs.
Dean Jerding 
(dfj@cc.gatech.edu)
(ccsupdj@prism.gatech.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,
Subject: talk.politics.model-un
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Thursday, 12 Nov 1992 10:17:30 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

    The Model UN is a simulation of the UN that takes place on the
    high school and college level all around the world.  It is both
    educational and fun.  I am trying to gather support for the
    creation of a talk.politics.model-un in order to faciliatate
    the exchange of info between Model UN groups around the world.
    To support, please post to news.groups.  Thanks.
                                                    Peace,
                                                          Matt
From: 00rdharringt@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Clinton Cabinet...
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:37:40 GMT
Organization: Ball State University

Just read this morning about two more possible cabinet appointees...

(of course both from Indiana)

Rep Lee Hamilton - State
Rep Phil Sharp - Energy

Any others?

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                                Clinton/Gore '92                             |
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
|                Not a spokesperson - REPEAT - Not a spokesperson             |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59567 triangle.politics:126
From: wolfe@wolves.uucp (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,triangle.politics
Subject: Re: A Comment on A Local Talk Show
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:39:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Red Wolfe @ The Wolves Den
X-Md4-Signature: 0569ae5fe0b4242c19d01f6565c6a0fe

<1992Nov9.170941.5032@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>In a previous article, bing@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing) says:
>
>>The announcer, instead of chastising this caller because of this radical
>>stance, said nothing. I was shocked that the caller was allowed to
>>express such a radical and dangerous opinion without be "called" on it.
>>To me it showed how irresponsible the host of this show was. 
>>	
>Here, though, I have to disagree.  Is it not possible that the host was left
>speechless by such a violent and unexp[ected diatribe?  It's not everyday
>someone is faced with responding to a call for the assassination of a major
>government figure, and while I could have responded (in a most negative
>fashon) to such a call, not everyone could.

Well, if I know which show Carter is referring to (and I'm pretty sure
that the hosts initials a B.R.)  this is probably part of the
explanation.

I'm not sure of what to think about this particular talk host anymore.
Back when he started doing talk radio the man was nicely moderate, and
even rather sympathetic to individualism.  Then, as Helmsism seized the
area (this is in Raleigh NC) this person was displaced by a radical
conservative for a while, and the station policy took a turn to the
conservative side.  (Not really suprizing, since it was owned by an
insurance company.)   After the rad-conserveative got fired (rumors are
that he provoked a fight with one of the managers over the sexual
orientation of one of the other announcers)  BR got the time slot back,
apparently with "order" to support a conservative/fundamental policy
line.  Only a year later, he gets his time cut back by the appearance of
the Rush Limbaugh phenomenon, and is wedged in between Rush and the
Drive Time news hour.

I really feel sort of sorry for the guy.
-- 
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den, Durham NC	[This site is NOT affiliated  ]
wolfe@wolves.durham.nc.us			[with Duke University! Idiots!]
UUCP: ...!duke!wolves!wolfe      <Standard Disclaimers apply>
    Above All, we celebrate!  --Celebrate the Circle, Statement of Purpose.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59253 ca.politics:9471
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Why "Child Abuse Causes Homosexuality" Really Doesn't Fly
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:46:05 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <100858@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <1de9ctINNrsg@gap.caltech.edu>
> vance@cco.caltech.edu (Vance R. Haemmerle) writes:
> >In article <100735@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
# ##So that means 16 men out of the 403 molesters were exclusively homosexual.
# ##16/403 = 4%
# 
# # So, what are you saying about this 4%? [...] How many exculsively
# # homosexual molesters are not fixated?  How many exclusively homosexual
# # molesters do not sexually assault but molest in other ways? [...]
# # Also, what percentage of this population is bi-sexual?
# 
# I haven't got a clue.
# 
# Which is why I've said that there is no statistical case to be made
# from the data Clayton Cramer supplied.
# 
# He'll try to tell you otherwise, though, saying that it is clear that
# homosexual men are overrepresented.
# 
# Look into this yourself, and you'll find no solid evidence to corroborate
# his claim.

I cited more than Abel's data.  Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny indicated
that 26% of molesters were exclusively molesting little boys, and
4% were bisexual.  That's 30% of molesters who are homosexual or
bisexual.

# I sympathize with him emotionally, since his nephew was molested by a man.

Actually, I found out about that recently.  I know LOTS of victims.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
The Physician Assisted Death Initiative failed.  Term limits for Congressmen
passed.  If only we could have combined the two... two terms, and a doctor
does lethal injection...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: President Clinton's Cabinet
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:28:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.043916.4099@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>
>Bruce Babbitt will be Sec'y of Interior.
>

I agree that this is a logical choice. I would also *like* to see
Babbitt involved in the administration. He was my favorite of the bunch
in 1988.

>-- 
>John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58875 ca.politics:9439 ba.politics:6891
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: A Worrisome Example of "Subhuman" Ideology
Date: 8 Nov 1992 03:17:12 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

Clayton are you not aware of the Biblical story of the Good Samaritan?

Was no the Good Samaritan a homosexual?

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer




Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:26:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.013458.1246@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.023941.23946@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>In article <8NOV199201395076@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov4.155545.15345@news.vanderbilt.edu>, rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes...
>>>>In article <1992Nov3.211100.3050@nic.csu.net> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:

>>>>    And let's give the impending resurgence of judicial activism
>>>>a nice big round of applause.  

>>>Yeah, nothing like those unelected, unanswerable to anyone legal nerds making
>>>laws.

>>Unanswerable to anyone?  Have you read the Constitution?  They're
>>answerable to Congress.

>Bullshit.  You mean impeachment?  That's for misconduct, not for
>making bad law.

Well, the Constitution says "good behavior."  But that's sort of
irrelevant, since there is no appeal for impeachment, except *maybe* on
procedural grounds.

Impeachment is not equivalent to a criminal trial.  The Senate doesn't really
have to give reasons for impeaching someone.  They can just do it.

>>For that matter, "unelected?"  They're no more unelected than the
>>President is.  And than the Senate used to be.

>More bullshit.  When we voted for president we knew who we were voting
>for.  Mind telling me who we were voting to put on the Court?

You don't actually vote for President.  You vote for electors.  But put
that aside for a second, since for the *most* part, electors DO follow
popular wishes.

But what about Senators?  The complain about Judges is that we didn't
elect them, so they shouldn't make law.  But we didn't use to be able to
elect Senators, either.  And no one complained that this means that
*they* shouldn't have been able to make law.

It isn't as if judges get chosen out of thin air.  They're nominated by
a mostly popularly elected President and approved by a popularly elected
Senate.  If we chose them out of the phone book, they'd be truly
unelected.  But we don't.  Our elected representatives elect them.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58561 alt.politics.elections:22936 alt.war.vietnam:451
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Stockdale is a Bumbling Idiot
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:39:45 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Nov5.204935.29624@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct31.142450.12037@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct30.022004.342@rational.com> msmiller@Rational.COM (Mark Miller) said:

>>> Your fight is with the politicians who created the war, NOT with the
>>> people who fought and died in it. Stockdale survived 7.5 years worth
>>> of something you wouldn't have lasted 7.5 minutes worth of.  If
>>> nothing else, he deserves more respect than you have shown.

>>I think that your first sentence may reflect much of what people are
>>complaining about Stockdale about.  ("Syntax meltdown decloaking off
>>the starboard bow, Captain!" :-)  Stockdale, in some recent comments
>>about the Vietnam antiwar protests, at least appears to be blaming the
>>protestors for his captivity, rather than the politicians who got him
>>into, and prolonged, that mess in the first place.  To me, this
>>doesn't necessarily brand Stockdale as a hypocrite, but he sure does
>>give the impression of being someone who just doesn't get it.

>Excuse me, but if the North Vietnamese were taunting US POWs with news
>about anti-war protests back home and stating that the US anti-war
>movement convinced them that if they could just hold out long enough
>they could win they you're the one who just doesn't get it whereas
>Stockdale had his nose rubbed in it for seven and a half years.

And why, exactly, should he believe them?  Are captors often in the
business of telling POWs what their leadership's policy decisions are
based on?

And this is silly, anyway.  Anyone who had studied the history there
would have noticed that the Vietnamese had been fighting for decades
when there was no anti-war protests in their enemy's countries.  They
weren't likely to surrender simply because there were no anti-war
protests in the US.

And Stockdale *still* doesn't seem to get the idea that if our
government had LISTENED to the anti-war protestors, the war would have
ended sooner, with less people getting killed or taken prisoner, and he
would have been home sooner.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics
From: yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo)
Subject: D'Amato pledges to never run again!  Maybe?
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 02:55:48 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In a moment of crisis, Sen. D'Amato pledged never to run again
for political office.  Now, that he has won, he is saying "never say never".
(I guess this means that he changed his "never" to a "definite maybe".)

(According to the Westchester Gannett Paper:)
His plans include running for the US Senate in '98 and for NY Governor
in '94.

Same ol' Al.

-- 
 Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
 From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59353 alt.politics.elections:23346 alt.rush-limbaugh:9369 talk.rumors:1191 alt.activism:18570
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 10 Nov 1992 17:01:50 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Nov10.023120.2114@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>In article <69.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>>EEOC Commissioner. Note that the EEOC is the agency where Hill was working
>>when she was sexually harassed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
>>who was then the EEOC Commissioner.
>
>She offered no evidence that she was harassed by anyone.
>
>--Tim Smith

In your opinion...

John

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Clinton To Promote High Technology
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:39:40 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Nov11.045528.18653@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>CLINTON TO PROMOTE HIGH TECHNOLOGY, WITH GORE IN CHARGE
>
>by William J. Broad, NYT 11/10/92, p.C1 (Science Times cover story)
>
>[The article is a bit too long to type in, so I'll summerize a bit.
> The portions in quotes will be directly from the article.]
>
>"If the promises of the Clinton campaign for science and technology
>now come to pass, America is headed for a new era in which the
>Government's focus on making armaments will shift to fostering a
>host of new civilian technologies and industries.
...
>  The plan mentions research in materials and industrial processes,
>  the creation of 170 manufacturing extension centers modeled on
>  "the highly successful agricultural ones"...

    Just what the country needs - high-tech pork.  Hey, how about
    price support for high-tech products?


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc