HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Is homosexuality immoral?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:50:44 GMT

This Michael Morse chap is making *me* look like a charter member of
the 'Be Nice to Christians' movement!

'Christ-fellating quotes', 'Jeezo-tripe'... incredible phrases!

... actually I have to confess something.  Michael Moore is mine 
and Anneliese's two headed love child.  He inherited my viciousness 
and her sharp wit.

Yow!

--Jimbo

p.s. Didja notice how he ended his harangue with 'Cordially, Michael'.
Cordially!  That's my boy...
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: democratic platform/homosexuality
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:44:15 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

Missy P 2 B writes: 
> The Judeo-Christian ethic has endured.  Some would argue that this
> is so because it is the Word of God.  But many others would merely
> concede that it is so because it is the most *sensible* way in which
> human behavior can be ordered.

And still others would say it was because of the church's demand for blind
obedience and its tendency toward militaristic terror (Roman Empire, Dark Ages,
Crusades, Inquisition), and of course a little bit of luck.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were those who came to power through domination,   |     Kai Alexis Price
Bonded in the worship of a dead man on a cross....       | <-- Burning Time
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 09:51:35 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Alleged Overpoulation (was Re: let's rephrase the question)
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>   Actually, the human species has a definite survival interest in
>>  NOT producing offspring. The single largest environmental
>>  problem is overpopulation.

Bollocks. The problem is not the number of people but the amount of
resources that each person consumes. It's not population, it's
consumption.

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 16:45:05 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform

>>public funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.  This is without
>>any restriction!  Just what we need, more taxpayer funds being spent to
>>purchase bullwhips to shove up the rears of Mapplethorpes (sp) models.  As
>>has been stated to many times to remember, REAL ART doesn't need artificial
>>support!  Taxes  Taxes  Taxes

>Just a small correction.The bullwhip was in Mapplethorpe's personal rear. I'd
>also be innarested in knowing what you consider to be *real* art.

brni's response was something along the line of "When was the last time
you went into an art supply store?"  Since I deleted that post already,
I guess I have to respond to this one.

A friend, an art/landscape design double major, makes foot-long horses
out of barbed wire, some other wire, and then adds some paper machete
and paints it. Looks real cool. Another friend, who graduated a few
years ago, bought a VW bug body and covered it with tar and little
florescent dinosaur figures. Really cool statement, and I no longer
have a limited view of what "art supplies" are.

But anyway, many of our great composers (Tsikofsky, included, and
yes, I know the spelling is WAY OFF, but this keyboard has no cyrillic
figures B) lived on patronage, which means a lord or lady paid him
to create the art, and the art went on to become national treasures,
which added to the lady's reputation. Considering that only about
64 of my last tax bill went to the National Endowment, I don't
really mind all that much.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
 I don't know art, but I know what I like
From: z_totahmc@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Congress Sux the D
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:33:49 CST
Summary: Franks a Gay rights guy?
Keywords: Congress
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

I am currently writing a paper on the image of congress.  I am emphasizing
Mitchell, Foley, Franks, Kennedy, and Newt.  If anybody out there has
any opinions regarding this pleaSE MAIL ME A MESSAGE.
Z_totahmc@cccsvax.sfasu.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:20:51 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Pennies from Heaven

>In all seriousness, if we DID give 1/4 of a cent to put the Bible in the
>classroom, who's doctrine would we follow?

The National Endowment for Bibles (or Religion) would decide what
Bibles to subsidize by consulting experts and a peer review process.

Other Bibles and Religion would still be available, they just wouldn't
be tax-supported.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:06:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      bourgoisie sex and foucault

From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform/homosexuality

Reading the comments on sexual morality, made me remember
something that someone said in one of my classes.  They
said that sexual morality was a purely bourgeois fiction.
The upper classes(traditionally and otherwise) have always
had affairs, liasons, etc and the lower classes have always
screwed whomever they wished.

        with the upper class, it depended on the politics of
        the moment.  the lower class, in general, were not
        even considered.  what they did was irrelevant, just
        as they were irrelevant for all but providing  food
        and sport.  this was one of the reasons that paganism
        took so long to die out in the lower classes: the
        powers that be never really considered them worth the
        time to fully convert (and they were bestial anyway,
        almost definately beyond redemption).

It is only the middle-class people who ever took the Bible
literally when it came to sex.  I believe that this friend
suggested that it had something to do with the necessity
of maintaining a family unit or something in a society(industrial),
where the family unit was becoming less and less utilitarian.

        well, actually, there were a few monks who took the bible
        literally when it came to sex.  so they didn't do it, even
        if it meant flagellating themselves to punish themselves for
        their lusts.

        it was the middle class that was important enough and literate
        enough for this concept of sex to really be instilled.

I don't remember this person's arguments very well and can't
carry them much further without more time, but does anyone
have any comments on this idea?

        try reading Michel Foucault _The History of Sexuality, vol I_
        (jay isn't here to make snide comments).  it is a fairly short
        read, but kinda interesting.  there are a couple other volumes
        out.  volume one puts forth the general theory though, which is
        what you are looking for, isnt it?

j.b.

        brni

"Power is a great aphrodisiac.

And I'm a very powerful person."

        "I say, anyone for tennis?"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:36:47 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              10 Sep 1992 12:56:54 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WV NET.EDU>

On Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:56:54 -0400 <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU> said:
>Hi, y'all:
>fred said:
>>>I still don't understand how the education voucher will upgrade our
>>>ability to compete on a global scale. Can someone enlighten me?
>
>and MacPhil replied:
>>Perhaps the education voucher provides the ability for poorer families
>>to attend private schools?
>
>According to the latest stats, students in private schools do no better
>than students in public schools when family background is taken into
>account.  And, although my income probably makes me middle-class, a $1K
>voucher *still* won't help me send my kid to private school.

>So, although that's the reason some give, I don't buy it :)

I don't remember asserting quality of education or performance.  But if
it allows poorer families the opportunity to attend, should they be
denied that opportunity?  If so, then could the same be argued for some
of the social programs?  Does having more material goods, etc. mean
a higher family quality?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:51:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: speed, police, crime, hell

linda:

my dad ran into the same speed trap (the one on ithan, yes?).

he appealed the ticket and the cop was a no-show.
(whew)

bnri
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:30:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: KAT is bad if and only if Jimbo is harmful

Suppose we change from talking about harming an owner's person to talking
about harming an owner's interests.  A property owner has a legitimate
interest in his property, which he exercizes through his control over it.
When you trespass on a person's property you are violating his interest
in his control over his property.  Nothing to kill over, but however
slightly, even if the owner doesn't know and there is no damage, if it
is against the will of the owner, you have harmed his interests.

                                                       Chris Morrison
                                                       CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:37:18 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: vote early, vote often ...

I'm waiting to cast my ballot until I discover which of the
various candidates is most like Harry Truman. I won't vote for
anyone who does not in some way resemble Harry, and I will probably
vote for whomever resembles him in the most salient respects.

My criterion of course is applicable to both the real election
and the virtual one.

Jamie

(For example, have any of our candidates ordered an atomic bomb
to be dropped on anyone recently?)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:11:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: a real question about international affairs...

What the critics of the ANC are mainly saying is that the ANC should never
have held the march when they knew the leader of the homeland was a raving
lunatic.  That leaves the question of how and why they actually were fired
on and why a raving lunatic has been placed in charge of the homeland in
the first place.

Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:53:11 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: what to do in a world that trivializes intelligence

I was going to let it slide with just the earlier post, but
after Missy J's condemnation of gifted programs, I have to
say this:

At ours, we learned computer programming(BASIC), worked with
advanced logic problems, learned sign language, toured the
radiology department of a local hospital, wrote poetry and
plays, learned different mathematical techniques, learned
"useful" French and Latin, learned Greek and Roman mythology,
learned how to develop negatives and film, learned how to
use a video camera and made our own movies with real editing
equipment(this is proving the most useful to me as I am
planning a career in film), learned about oceanography by
study and keeping a salt-water aquarium, learned about
French art and much, much more.

The most important was that we went on a tour of the
Louisiana School for Math, Science and the Arts(that public
college prep school about which I've been talking), which
was the determinating factor in my applying.

Not every program is like yours.  Also, we were only
out of school one day a week.  The rest of the week,
we were in regular classes with everyone else.

I was in the program from 5th-8th grade.  It wasn't until
8th, that people were separated into classes by "intelligence".
Up until then, we were mixed.

I advocate mixing because it is stifling to work with people
who go slower than you do.  It doesn't mean that they are
any less than you are, it just means that on some things,
you don't work well together.

This comes down to being with people who are motivated.  I was
surrounded by motivated students at LSMSA.  Here at Rhodes,
few people are motivated and it is abyssmal(sp?) at times.
Were it not for a few of my friends who are concerned about
the world around them and academic topics, I would have
either killed myself or transferred and then killed myself
upon finding out that it is like that everywhere.  I am
also fortunate to have some really good professors, with
whom I discuss many issues in private.  Mental stimulation
is my addiction.

Anyhow, the problem with education today, is motivation.

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:19:14 -0500
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: vote early, vote often ...

I guess I've just continued plodding along with issues discussion,
without touting DuncaN/ValentiN much, figuring if you thought our
thinkings had  merit, you'd vote for us. We apparently are not as
humorous as Tim, Gary,  Jimbo or Jamie. A poll might be good, I
recall Brni did that before and did  fine - I nominate him to be
poll-taker. On the "jerk/idiot" idea, I cannot  in good conscience
participate, though I find many of the ideas put forth by these two,
and at least three others, almost completely repugnant, more than a
little sanctimonious, and often seeming so far out of the mainstream
as to startle me when I read their posts. I feel bad that the Right
feels only the evocation of Jesus is necessary to validate their
arguments, and that the rest of us, regardless of political leaning,
can be basically dismissed on the grounds we don't give Jesus and
Bible primacy in our lives. I'm not a Christian,rejected the religion
to practice 33 years ago, but I agree that there are principles in
Christianity that are useful guides for life, as is also so from the
tenets of Hindu, Islam, Taoism, and Judaism. I practice none of these
religions, finding institutionalized religions of ANY KIND basically
"using"  their followers to perpetuate their existence. But,
labelling this person or that the "list idiot" only makes for bad
blood, stirs up animosities that asren't necesary, and uglifies our
exchange even more than is already so. I find the strategy a few of
us are in apparent agreement about - to not respond to the worst
and/or most ludicrous of these posts - much more in line with my
"virtual election" claim, that DuNcaN/ValeNtiN is the ticket of
"reasonableness." Vote, but only once, VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:35:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject: RE: response to Brni

Subj:   Re: RE: response to Brni


Tyrone--who said anything about business controlling your beliefs?
They can't throw you in jail--all they can do is fire you.  Don't
you think if I put my hard-earned money into owning a business
that I should be able to hire and fire whom I wish?
-Travis

        no. not really.

        brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:32:55 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Interest Rates
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:50:05 EDT Jamie said:
>>>What I like to know is how come the Federal Reserve Board's
>>>discount rate is at an all time low of 3%, but the IRS keeps
>>>charging high interest rates (in the vicinity of 9-12%?)
>>
>>>So Bush wants to charge the Banks 3% but the little guys
>>>10%.  Another example of the Republicans/Bush being the
>>>friend of the rich and powerful.     :-)
>>
>>Before pointing fingers, I'm curious who is really responsible for setting
>>the rates?  Is it tied to some financial index, does it require
>>Congressional intervention, etc.?  Why so quick to blame Bush?
>
>The discount rate is set by the federal reserve board, whose chief
>was appointed by Bush. Congress has nothing to do with it.

But now that the Fed Chief is in place, it's out of Bush's hands as well, no?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:52:01 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Legal Standing/Homosexual

Hello Jimbo:

Your statement on homosexual partnership and 'legal standing' got me to
thinking about the courts, especially the Supreme Court and the replacements
that may be made during the next presidency.

> It is that lack of legal standing which constitutes the harm to homosexuals
> from our current marriage laws.

Given a scenario, if such a case of homosexual partnership and legal standing
were to arrive before the Supreme Court, (and I am not sure if such a one
has), as the Court now stands:

Would the Supreme Court, with its current appointees, pass such a law allowing
homosexual partnership equal legal standing as a heterosexual marriage?

Before the SC Roe v. Wade decision, I assumed that RvW would be overturned,
however, since 4 out of the 5 points were not overturned, the supposedly
'conservative' court I believe shocked many other conservatives as well as
myself.  If the homosexual legal standing was given a decision today, I
would be uncertain as to their vote, however, I wouldn't assume the vote
to be no, possibly with Scalia, Thomas, being definate no's, O'Connor, Souter,
and maybe Kennedy also voting no, Renquist, Blackmun, White, and Stevens are
big question marks.

However, after the 1992 election, there may be replacements with White and
Blackmun, and Bush or Clinton will be the deciding factor if the SC will
become more conservative or moderate.

Would a more moderate court then make a difference if such a case were
to arrive?   If both are replaced by Clinton with liberal judges, no,
maybe not with only two, but if Stevens were replaced, then more than
likely yes, the homosexual partnership legal standing would improve its
chances under Clinton appointees.  How far  would Mr. Clinton's litnus
test extend in nominating judge appointees in this case?   Would the
Congressional commitee agree with Mr. Clinton's litnus test in voting
for the next judges?

It is obvious that Bush appointees will once again be, I think not just
conservative, but very conservative.  Thomas is proof of that, even though
there may be more fights like Thomas had.

I know this is just all speculation, but a case scenario like this was just
a thought, considering possible SC replacements coming up soon.

Sue Clark

Sheesh, now I can't even remember who designed the building that the Supreme
Court resides, oh-oh, watch out, failing memory in progress, I used to know.

Anyone know?  I know the SC has been in their current domain since 1936.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:31:58 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Re:War Between the Jasons

Hi, Sue:
>Still, there are these 'partnerships' that do exist between members of the
>same gender and they are still performed, the state and court are not
>stopping them.  Though I agree with the law that a homosexual union is no
>a legitimate marriage, yet they are still happening.
>Though I agree with the law that this is not a legitimate marriage, yet they
>So how can homosexuals say they are being discriminated against when they
>are performing them anyway?

They are being discriminated against in that they do not derive the same
legal benefits from their union as heterosexual couples do (they can't file
"married, joint"; they generally cannot receive "spousal" job benefits;
they generally cannot adopt; etc.).  This is what I don't understand.  Just
think -- in theory, I can fill out some forms, and a guy I've known for 20
minutes can be included in my health care package, can file his taxes in a
more favorable bracket, can have a financial interest in my house and other
property.  A homosexual couple, on the other hand, cannot do those things -
- even if they've had a loving, supportive, monogamous relationship for 20
years!

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:57:59 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: It's always the money
              14 Sep 1992 12:29:03 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

Hi all:

I had a poetry professor who was adamantly opposed to *all* government
funding for art, and here is why.

According to him, the artists that get grants tend to be people who were
already considered highly esteemed within the art community, and who
would have no trouble funding themselves (or getting their friends to
fund them) if they had no government funding.  The result is, if you
will, art that is the elitist-of-the-elite.  In other words, not only
don't most mainstream Americans (who pay the bills) appreciate the art
being funded, neither do most mainstream artists.  If you have a friend
on the committee, or if you get somebody to give you a showing in one of
the more artsy places in New York, LA, or DC, you might end up with some
funding.

It was his feeling that this process was not a democratization of art,
but a narrowing of it, in that very obscure art that happened to be
preferred by the Powers That Be became Important Art, whether deservedly
so or not.

I think that's what he said, anyway.  I was trying to memorize Adrianne
Rich before the test.

--Missy P 2 B