HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:57:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.095030.6902@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In <1993Jan1.204230.14425@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan1.194924.6013@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>>>Yamanari writes:
>
>>>#	1.  No matter how you stack the deck, it's deviant.
>>>#	2.  Our culture seeks to cure those who are deviant from
>>>#		their behavior.
>
>>>Playing baseball is deviant. Should we seek to cure baseball players?
>
>>	If someone compulsively, constantly plays baseball?  And then
>>	whines that people wont be nice to them because they don't
>>	have anything in common (not everyone likes talking about
>>	baseball, playing baseball, etc, watching baseball)?
>
>>	You can bet that such a person would be into a hospital faster
>>	than you or I could say, "Home run"...
>
>I'm glad I don't live in a place run by *your* odd view of liberty.  No,
>such a person would *not* be in a hospital.  Not in this country.
>
>The only time you can confine people against their will in a mental
>hospital is when they pose a danger to others.
>
>Furthermore, it goes a little beyond "won't be nice."  All the way to
>"discriminates," in fact.
>
>Personally, I think that anyone who *doesn't* like baseball is mentally
>ill, but hey, I wouldn't prevent them from getting married, adopting
>children, serving in the army, or visiting sick spouses.
>
>As to your argument in another post about deviance, you're deliberately
>mixing definitions.  Deviant has a connotation of *bad* as well as being
>different from a norm.  Otherwise, deviant trivially means anything done
>by 49% of the population or less, and doesn't give much useful information.
>
>As to baseball, I think being left-handed is a more appropriate analogy.
>It is obviously deviant by *your* definition.  Do we lock up lefties and
>deny them basic rights?

	Unlike homosexuality, left-handedness does not affect interpersonal;
	interaction.


-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
From: mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Pardon Amy Fisher!
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:17:28 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.

And, while Bush is on a pardoning orgy, why not pardon Quayle's
dealer-man, who they locked up in solitary so he couldn't spill the beans
about his best customer.

Mike

  ``Don't Bogart that joint, my friend. Pass it over to Dan...''

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: geff@iastate.edu (Geff Underwood)
Subject: Re: Libertarian heaven
Organization: none for me, thanks, I'm trying to cut down
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:15:21 GMT

In article <CB.93Jan5142112@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
>
>There's a country that fulfills the dearest dreams of Libertarians: it
>has no government

Again?  This was refuted about a month ago.  You have the Libertarians
confused with somebody else.  Libertarians want a government police
force, government courts, and government military forces -- read their
platform if you don't believe me.

Some individual party members may well advocate the repeal of all
government, but they are not speaking for their party when they do that,
any more than Lyndon LaRouche speaks for the Democrats or David Duke
speaks for the Republicans.

--
Geff Underwood
geff@iastate.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:55:48 GMT

In article 184779@pyramid.pyramid.com, khearn@pyrps5.eng.pyramid.com (Keith Hearn) writes:
>...
>Now in Weinberger's case, it's likely that the trial would last until 
>Clinton (or maybe Clinton's successor, considering the glacial speeds
>at which our justice system moves) was in office, in which case Bush 
>wouldn't have been able to pardon him. But then, Weinberger could 
>always plead guilty really quickly, thus getting the whole mess over 
>with before Clinton took over and Bush would still get to pardon him. 

I think you miss the entire point of the controversy.  Weinberger himself stated
it quite clearly.  He was being used as a means of getting at Bush and Reagan.
By pardoning Weinberger, Bush was saving his own neck.  Few people really care
about Weinberger's role in this mess.  If anything, he tried to talk some sense
into those idiots.  His mistake was that he participated in the coverup.  Oops!
I misspoke myself.  He didn't make any mistake.  Criminal behavior paid off in
this case.  :-(

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: national debt? why?
Date: 13 Jan 1993 02:20:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, lbaum@atc.boeing.com (Larry Baum) says:
>The percentage of the debt represented by savings bonds is pretty small.  Most
>of the debt is in large notes held by large institutions and foreign investors.
> Without the heavy investment by Germans and Japanese over the last decade, we
>would have been incapable of financing our large deficits.


      Sadly true.  I highly suspect that the Japanese will not only NOT
   be buying much in the way of U.S. bonds in the future, but may start
   selling off what they have soon.  Their cash flows must be terrible 
   by now.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Joe Bob)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: a gora
Distribution: usa 
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 09:06:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.073836.6197@psg.com> michaels@psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>
>If an Impeachment can override a Pardon, could the Senate use
>impeachment proceedings to override _Weinberger's_ Pardon?


  What would be the point in impeaching Weinberger now?

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66227 soc.motss:54803 ca.politics:10509 ba.politics:8018
From: rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV molest
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 17:15:46 PST
Distribution: ca
Organization: Surf City Software, Orange, Calfornia - DUDE!

tdbear@dvorak.amd.com (Thomas D. Barrett) writes:

> Now, if you talk ill of homosexuality from any public orifice (this
> will do) that means that you are part of the mental abuse which
> results in over 1,300 gay teens feeling worthless and inhuman enough
> to take their own life AND that means that you are part of the
> hysteria which places up to 500,000 teens out on the street each year
> because of hatred and intolerance.  You aren't directly responsible
> (maybe), but you do play a role (elevated by the pride in publically
> displaying such).  So, if I charge you with child abuse and it goes to
> court and by some miracle you lose, then that means that you can be
> discriminated against for being anti-gay.  1st Amendment rights?  No.
> Not only must there be a line drawn to protect the children, but the
> 1st Amendment does not guarantee a podium from which to speak.  Nor
> does it give the speaker the right to commit another crime (in this
> case it was child abuse).


Question: what is included in talking ill of homosexuality?  I personally
have no problem with gay sex -- the act, that is.  Short of murder in
the form of a duel, consenting adults should have the right to do 
anything they want to, so long as it infringes on no one elses rights or
property.  But am I allowed to say that gay political aims still seem,
at least from some quarters, to focus on a return to a latexified 1970's
where homosexuality = multiple partners with the added twist of a 
barrier?  This is what I see in things like the "Guide to Safe-r Sex" 
that has widely circulated on the Internet.

Now, clearly not all gays are of these opinions.  But the fact that such
misinformation continues to spread worries me; it looks like nobody has
learned much.
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 14:50:12 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan11.092637.7245@microsoft.com> leecr@microsoft.com  
(Lee Crocker) writes:
> Food, shelter, medicine, all the basic necessities of life are the
> products of work.  There is no evidenc that private charities can't
> take care of those unable to work--indeed there is ample evidence  
that
> they do so much better than governments do.  

A number of libertarian posters keep saying this.  Can somebody
provide some of this "ample evidence."  

---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
X-Xxdate: Mon, 11 Jan 93 15:35:17 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:39:05 GMT

In article <C0pH8K.8It@unix.portal.com> mike myke schwartz,
mykes@shell.portal.com writes:
>My friend, you argue out of both sides of your mouth.  I said exactly
>the same thing and you denied it.

Sorry friend, but you contended that NASA had little influence on the
microelectronics revolution. There is no contradiction with
my previous points. The fact is that NASA's requirements for
speed and size bolstered the industry, both technology and cost
reduction as has been stated. However, I am not as naive as you
are. I recognize that
other players, including DOD, made significant contributions also.
The DOD influence on quality and durability due to MIL SPEC
requirements, for example, cannot be ignored.


Nice try though.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:07:10 GMT

Al Thompson (art@world.std.com) wrote:
: In article <C09FtM.6Ar@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: 
:    Dr. Norman J. LaFave (lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov) wrote:
:    : In article <C03q6D.J6y@unix.portal.com> mike myke schwartz,
:    : mykes@shell.portal.com writes:
:    : >Dr. Norman J. LaFave (lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov) wrote:
:    : >: In article <C00z4x.8Ln@unix.portal.com> mike myke schwartz,
:    : >: mykes@shell.portal.com writes:
:    : >: >Jay Denebeim P025 (denebeim@brtph254.bnr.ca) wrote:
:    : >: >: In article <1992Dec17.172656.27110@technology.com>
:    : judy@technology.com
:    : >: (Judy 
:    : >: >McMillin) writes:
:    : >: >
:    : >: >NOT quite as rosey as you make it out to be...
:    : >: > 
:    : >: >: 1) The space program has always paid for itself by the worth of the
:    : >: >:    technologies developed for it.  A very few are:
:    : >: >:    a) Microelectronics without which we wouldn't even be talking.
:    : >: >
:    : >: >AT&T, the PHONE company (as opposed to a space technology company)
:    : >: >invented the transistor.  Microelectronics would have happened without
:    : >: >the space program.  DEFENSE technology had much more to do with all
:    : >: >of the stuff you talk about here and even the space program itself.
:    : >: 
:    : >: And the space program was intimately involved in the development of the
:    : >: integrated circuit. So what is your point?
:    : >: 
:    : >
:    : >NOT quite as rosey as you make it out to be...
:    : 
:    : Oh, how so? The statement was made above that AT&T caused the
:    : microelectronic evolution and the space program had nothing to do
:    : with it. That is fallacious.
:    : 
: 
:    Read again.  There are two false assertions above:
:    1)	Without the space program, there would be no microelectronics
:    2)	That anyone made the statement that AT&T caused the microelectronic
: 	   revolution and the space program had nothing to do with it.
: 
:    The assertion 1) was made, and simply proven false.  Without NASA we would
:    have microelectronics.
: 
: Whether or not we would have had microelectronics without NASA is not at
: issue.  The indisputable fact is that it was NASA's willingness to buy
: microelectonic components at any price that brought microelectronics into
: the consumer market place.  This is amply documented.  For openers I
: suggest you look at "The Chip" by T.R. Reid.
: 

I suggest you look at the United States budget for the last 20 years and see
what the government has been spending money on.  The military budget for 1988
was 10x what NASA's was.  Which costs more, an aircraft carrier or a moonshot?
Didn't you see any of the video tape on TV during the gulf war?  The stealth
bomber has zero technology in it, right?  To assert that NASA earned its keep
by driving microchip technology is false.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,alt.conspiracy
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Dr Paul's AUDIO LETTER #1 of 6750
Date: 6 Jan 93 04:05:19 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Originator: proberts@woof

... just kidding!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Re: Clayton's 10% Silence
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:57:34 GMT

In article <13775@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>[soc.motss deleted because I'm tired of harrassment by a bunch of
>emotional basket cases.]
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Cramer, I do not think you should be harrased.  However, I think
you should look deep into yourself (or better yet ask your
therapist) about who is the biggest basket case of all. 

After doing this go look in a mirror.	



>
>In article <1992Dec30.004813.16500@ariel.ec.usf.edu>, woodard@figment.tmc.edu (Chris Woodard) writes:
>> Clayton, you still haven't listed your sources.  If listing sources is not a
>> requirement for this thread, then have I got some statistics for you
>> concerning the relative proportion of Fundamentalist Baptist ministers
>> convicted of child molestation!
>
>I have REPEATEDLY posted my sources.  Again.

Cramer, in the last set of sources you showed us it was clear that 2.5%
(approx) of molesters were exclusively self identifying as gay.  The
rest considered themselves hets.

This figure was arrived at *from your own sources*, when you can
show the maths was wrong then it might be worth checking your
sources.  But until then your sources prove you wrong.

Go do the maths.

Then apologise.

Then go away.


Xavier.
-- 
** Xavier Gallagher                        ***********************************
** Genius, Plumber & Madman                ******* s0xjg@exnet.co.uk ********* 
** Part time Dark OverLord Of The Universe ***********************************
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 6 Jan 93 15:28:39 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1id686INNicv@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:

|From whom did Mr. North receive this gift?  From where did the monies come
|from?  If you would like me to get *my* facts straight, please feel free to
|help me "straighten" them out.  If you have facts, please post them.  But
|please post *all* the facts ie: if he was given this security system, by
|whom did he receive it?  Where did the money come from?  etc etc.  Please
|enlighten me.......


From Secord, a private citizen.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:51:40 GMT

garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
>ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>> 
>>When the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, the establishment reluctantly
>>hailed it as the end of the cold war. But was it the end or merely the
>>beginning of the end? Socialism collapsed in Eastern Europe and then
>>the Soviet Union with a resounding thud. Yet it survives in the West
>>if only barely.
>
>To say that the socialism of Western Europe and the Communism of Eastern
>Europe are the same thing, shows a definant lack of understanding of the
>politics of Europe.

Yeah, but in the U.S. you can get away with saying that kind of stuff
'cos your reader doesn't know any better, either (or, you know that
they don't know any better and victimize them for it).  If Mr. Ipser
ever attends a dinner by the German-American Chamber of Commerce as I
have or looks at Napoleon's Code Civil (which codified many practices
of French culture -- including a set of civic responsibilities ---
that existed and have carried on), his hair will stand on end ... is
it socialism, or is just it different values from Americans??? (-;

>You mean borrow-and-spend Republicans. Bill Clinton also wants to 
>socailize health care like all the rest of the industrialized world.

"Socialists" of the pro-business parties in Canada, France and Germany
gave those countries the second-most capitalist medical systems in the
world.  You wouldn't know it in America if you've never visited there or
read about it in their newspapers/magazines nor talked to their people.

... instead, you'd be lobbying for pseudo-socialized medicine via HMO
(even Clinton is guilty here).

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		President Bush should
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			pardon Amy Fisher NOW!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66647 ca.politics:10540 ba.politics:8133
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:39:19 GMT
Distribution: ca

With regards to all this talk on sex, safety and
condoms....guys and gals...THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "SAFE
SEX"!

Everything you have been taught is a lie...start over again.

1 week ago CNN ran a news story describing how they are
testing for HIV antibodies by taking a saliva sample....and
they say the HIV enters the saliva from the small amount of
blood that seeps from underneath our gums.....ergo...french
kissing is a death sentence......they also found that HIV
lives for 7 days on dry environment ergo....sharing glasses
is a death sentence.....if one sneezes or coughs into one's
hand and then shakes your hand...because HIV is 10 smaller
than the pores of your skin the HIV virus will sink into the
2nd epidermal layer wherein your capillaries terminate and
enter the capillary via osmosis ergo...shaking hands is a
death sentence. And because HIV antibodies have now been found
in reasonable concentrations in saliva it is safe to assume
HIV is there as well ergo....being in the way of a sneeze
(which carries germs up to 50 feet from the point of origin)
is a death sentence as the virus can enter your blood stream
via your nasal membrane osmotically.

Lambskin condoms aree porous so they are out...hell just about
everything to do with sex short of self gratification is a
death sentence....now personally I dont give a rat's ass who
denies this or debunks it....I wont grace that level of stupidity
with a reply.

The information is there.....all you have to do is keep
searching and you will find it too.....

The only alternatives I can see is: to cut off your genitals
and throw them away; put salt peter in your food; or have your
nervous system to your pleasure centers in your brain
surgically severed. No kidding here...I am thoroughly
depressed with the state of affairs concerning this
disease....and if this sucker was manufactured..hopefully
those who did it will catch it.

Len
--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:23:51 GMT

In article 1ifhtkINNdq6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu, ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>....
>And to add to the hypocrisy - I wonder if the wonderfull unbiased media, which
>blasted Quayle if he happened to play golf one time at some obscure club which
>had no minority members, will give us a breakdown of the student population
>at this elite private school.  And if it turns out to be predominantly white
>...

You can count on it.  Your sarcasm is a little silly, given that the media has
already blasted Clinton for playing at such golf clubs.  They blast everyone who
does it, not just Quayle.  As well they should.

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 5 Jan 1993 23:39:50 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 93Jan5024145@world.std.com, art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
> In article <1ia8p9INNhe3@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:
> 
> 
>    That's right.  The money that he "borrowed" to buy that home security
>    system is going to be repaid right?  Please, give me a break.  North
>    stole the money for his own use.  He had to answer (or get permission)
>    from NO ONE.  He is a thief, a liar *and* a criminal.  This is just from
>    his testimony before congress.
> 
> North stole not a dime.  The security fence was given to him.  He was
> charged with accepting a gratuity as a federal officer.  You certainly
> should get your facts straight.
> 

From whom did Mr. North receive this gift?  From where did the monies come
from?  If you would like me to get *my* facts straight, please feel free to
help me "straighten" them out.  If you have facts, please post them.  But
please post *all* the facts ie: if he was given this security system, by
whom did he receive it?  Where did the money come from?  etc etc.  Please
enlighten me.......



Bob De Guc
I vote, therefore, I am!!



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66357 misc.legal:22081