HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:26:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov15.062456.17799@eskimo.com>, wix@eskimo.com (Dennis Wicks) writes...
>In article <Bxn8ox.KKz@acsu.buffalo.edu> v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>>In article <Qf0kU8u00awUB5F1Uw@andrew.cmu.edu>, ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas > 
>>>Legacies generate huge amounts of money for colleges, since those whose
>>>children attend a school as a legacy are far more likely to make alumni
>>>donations.  Legacies are good business for colleges, not a form of
>>>discrimination.
>>>
>>
>>Oh god! I never heard such a load of bullshit rationalization in all my life
>>If you give preference to those whose parents went there (and give a lot of 
>>money, to be honest) over equally well qualified candidates, that is 
>>discrimination in the most objective sense of the word. By your logic, the 
>>affirmative action you so despise would be "good business" too-the college
>>practicing it would gain a reputation for giving minorities a break, so they 
>>would be in a position to receive more applications-and tuition checks-from 
>>minorities.
> 
>Oh god!  I never heard such a load of bullshit rationalization in 
>all my life!!  Do you _really_ think that _tuition_ covers the cost
>of operating a college or university?  Do you really think that
>_you_ paid for your education.  _All_by_yourself?_  

No, I don't. But how many universities do you see (besides, I think, Cooper 
Union) that don't charge tuition? Schools make money in many ways.

> 
>If it wasn't for rich alums, and "legacies," most private schools
>would have to close their doors.  Many have already.  If it as
>state school, then the taxpayerss are keeping it going, and not
>too successfully in several instances.
> 
>Your "good business" argument doesn't hold water. That minority,
>or middle class WASP for that matter, is never going to become a
>rich alum who can donate a trust fund or finance a chair in some
>department.  OK, not _never_, but the chances are somewhere
>between slim and none.

I didn't come up with the "good business" argument-the guy I was responding to 
did.  Thank you for helping me prove  it  was absurd


							Dan Case
						v140pxgt@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60702 soc.women:19848 soc.men:19519 soc.motss:48194
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.women,soc.men,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Misogyny gay and straight
Keywords: hippocrapy
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:17:28 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <13217@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

GWS:
># And if you want to find a misogynist, look in a mirror.
># 
>#      Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 

>No, I'm a "homophobe" not a misogynist.  (My wife would be quite
>amused by your characterization).

Clayton's not a misogynist, but a sexist. And homoophobia/heterosexism
and misogyny are the extremes of two different paths from that original
sexism.

He agrees with the notorious sexist, Marilyn Quayle, that a woman is not
totally fulfilled unless she is a full-time homemaker.

If you're not a sexist, Clayton, then naturally you believe neither is a man
totally satisfied unless he is a full-time homemaker.

Brian
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Pat Schroeder on Term Limits
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 13:36:06 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov20.150931.7760@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
|> 
|> In article <QLG=vJ#@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu said:
|> 
|> > One reason that I am in favor of term limits on a national level is
|> > to break up the pockets of power created by the Congressional
|> > seniority system.  Creating locally contestable races is only of
|> > secondary importance.  The problem with the seniority system is that
|> > it is a creation of Congress and you aren't likely to find members
|> > voting to change it.  It will take an outside force and I think term
|> > limits is an appropriate method.
|> 
|> It looks to me like you're going around three sides of a square
|> instead of traveling in a straight line.  If the reformation or
|> abolition of the seniority system is your goal, why not agitate and
|> work for the passage of legislation (or a constitutional amendment)
|> that would do that directly?
|> 

Too much effort for too little probability of success.  Term limits
will do the job and I don't believe will adversely affect the
democratic process, particularly if term limitation is used as a
ballot access restriction (ala Washington state).


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61297 alt.sex:37194
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: For Those Who Think That Gay Men Have Changed Their Behavior
Date: 22 Nov 92 20:05:21 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

#I do.  First, homosexuals are dozens times more likely to be HIV carriers.

1) Please document this assertion.

2) It is irrelavent. Argueing that because a random homosexual partner
is more likely to be HIV+ than a random heterosexual partner mean that
you can take fewer precautions is like argueing that a person who
skydives only once a year doesn't need to be as careful as someone who
skydives 300 times a year.

#Vaginal sex simply
#is dozens times less risky than anal sex.

For males, perhaps, but I have not seen the figures comparing the risk
for women.

#Multiply dozens by dozens by eight and a half, and you get "thousands."

When two of the three multipliers are irrelavent, you get a bogus
estimate.

#The homosexual community needs to be more serious about AIDS prevention
#than the heterosexual community because they're much much more at risk.

I can think of no attitude better than this to guarentee future health
problems for heterosexuals. 

Both heterosexuals and homosexuals need to take precautions against
the spread of HIV.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.usage.english,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Subject: Re: Doublespeak Awards
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:54:29 GMT
Reply-To: kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Nov23.093045.4316@r-node.gts.org> ndallen@r-node.gts.org (Nigel Allen) writes:
>
>/* Written  5:55 pm  Nov 21, 1992 by bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu in igc:misc.activism. */
>/* ---------- "1992 Doublespeak Awards" ---------- */
>1992 Doublespeak Awards
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

They're reaching on a few of them:

>*** U.S. soldiers should pay close attention to the Army's
>warning that exposure to nerve gas may cause "immediate permanent
>incapacitation" -- that is, death.

I would think that, say, irreversible blindness or paralysis on
contact would also count as "immediate permanent incapacitation".

>*** Removing books from the library isn't censorship, just a case
>of "weeding" books.

Not necessarily the same thing.  There are other reasons to remove a
book from a library collection (age, condition, owning other copies,
replacement by a later edition, lack of patron interest, etc.), and
any library that lacks an infinite ammount of shelf space doubtless
"weeds" constantly.  Only if the reason for the removal was objection
to the book's content or the author would I classify it as
"censorship". 

>2nd place -- The Republican and Democratic parties for "claiming
>they are for reforming the way political campaigns are financed,
>even while they continue to seek and accept large contributions
>from special-interest groups, corporations, and wealthy
>individuals."

I can almost buy this award, but it isn't *necessarily* hypocritical
to say "I want the rules changed, but until they are, I will play by
the current rules rather than put myself at a disadvantage".  

Evan Kirshenbaum		       +------------------------------------
    HP Laboratories		       | You cannot solve problems with the
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U | same type of thinking that created
    Palo Alto, CA  94304	       | them.
				       |                    Albert Einstein
    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com	       | 
    (415)857-7572
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: For Those Who Think That Gay Men Have Changed Their Behavior
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:18:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.234440.23014@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.225909.26965@midway.uchicago.edu>
>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes: 
>#You're comparing apples and oranges.  What was defined as "unsafe sex"
>#in the heterosexual study puts one at thousands times less risk than
>#the behavior Clayton describes.
>
>No, I'm comparing oranges and tangerines. While not all sexual
>activities carry the same sorts of risks, I don't think that
>"thousands" is the proper factor. 

I do.  First, homosexuals are dozens times more likely to be HIV carriers.
Second, the well-trumpeted study of heterosexual behavior defined unsafe
sex as something like "more than one partner in three years" vs. the other
study's "receptive anal sex with a high-risk group."  Vaginal sex simply
is dozens times less risky than anal sex.  Finally, half of the members
of the heterosexual study were men who sleep with women -- and women-to-man
transmission is seventeen times less likely than man-to-woman transmission.
If not more so.

Multiply dozens by dozens by eight and a half, and you get "thousands."
 
>My basic point is that Clayton is ignoring the fact that the
>homosexual community is more serious about AIDS prevention than the
>heterosexual community. That can have severe consequences in the
>future. 

The homosexual community needs to be more serious about AIDS prevention
than the heterosexual community because they're much much more at risk.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,ca.politics
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:11:12 GMT

In article <13240@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#You tried to claim that Naziism was an example of insufficient
#government.  I was pointing out that this is false -- Naziism
#was the result of too much government (liberalism).

I never made that claim. My first claim was that I found your
scapegoating of homosexuals very interesting on the anniversary of
kristalnacht. I then rebutted your claim that the people who smashed
the windows were not responsible for their actions.

I never claimed that Naziism was not insufficient goverenment. 

#Those laws are already there, and therefore impossible to stop.

You have posted hundreds of articles against anti-discrimination laws
against homosexual rights. Last year there was debate about
anti-discrimination laws for the handicapped. I did not see a single
post of yours against those laws.

You appear to me to be using "freedom of association" to mask your
bigotry. 

#Are you aware that you look like a supporter of child molestation
#for continuing to defend NAMBLA's soap box, the homosexual fascist
#lobby?  See how silly this is?

Since I don't support NAMBLA it is hard for me to defend their
soapbox. 


--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60873 misc.headlines:7098
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 19 Nov 1992 08:24:11 CST
From: <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines
Subject: Jack S's memory is as good as Ronald Reagan's.

Apologies to Daniel Keren.  I didn't mean for it to sound like there was
a conspiracy ganging up on Jack Schmidling.  There isn't.  He merely
supplied what I asked for, and he's not accusing Jackie boy of lying.

I, however, am, and to continue hammering home the point, here's
another paragraph.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ARF says:

 Boycotting Kosher food can bring attention to the fact that
 all Americans are not blinded by the propaganda from Israel
 and its "friends" in America.  Boycotts are to make a point,
 nothing else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Doug-ie, who brings dumb things to light.
(Sung to the GE tune.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: porges@beretta.camb.inmet.com (Don Porges)
Subject: Re: Do you remember 1970 to 1980?
Organization: Intermetrics Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:46:59 GMT

In article <9211112205.AA06157@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
>       As part of a impromptu research project, I'd like to know what
>   YOU thought the single most important ( dramatic, traumatic ) event
>   was, between 1970 to 1980.
>
>

    I'll take the Iranian revolution, which led to both the 1979 oil
price hike and the hostage crisis, causing in no small part the
election of Reagan.
-- 
					-- Don Porges
					porges@inmet.camb.inmet.com
					..uunet!inmet!porges
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60771 alt.rush-limbaugh:9976 talk.rumors:1341 alt.activism:18959 alt.politics.elections:24100
From: peterd@polari.online.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Entreprise Zones
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:09:41 GMT
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix.  (206) 328-4944 (all lines telebit-equipped)

wix@eskimo.com (Dennis Wicks) writes:

>In article <BxnyFv.4nD@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>>In article <Bxn8ox.KKz@acsu.buffalo.edu> v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>>...
>>>But, as Michael Kinsley has pointed out, the whole idea of enterprise zones 
>>>is inherently unconservative. The government is trying to get capital to go 
>>>where it doesn't want to. This sounds like-industrial policy! ...
>>
>>    "Economist" called enterprise zones "the Republican version of big
>>    goverment waste".  I tend to agree.
>>
>Sound like a good description to me.  The people that live in the
>"enterprise zones" don't have the skills needed  to get many of
>the new jobs.  Oh, a janitor or two, and maybe some jobs on the
>loading dock.  But the best jobs will be taken by people
>commuting _in_ from the suburbs!  The people that need the jobs
>and the training will not benefit much, if at all.  But we
>will be subsidizing some very nice new facilities for a few
>businesses.
>              
Sounds like racism to me: the people in the 'zones'
don't have the skills, training or ability to handle
complicated tasks.   Right.

As to the question of 'enterprise zones forcing capital
to go where it doesn't want to': wrongo.  Capital has
no conscience [Marx] - it goes where it can find a return.

The problem with enterpirse zones is that they are specialized
'hot houses' under special conditions.  When the conditions
change - the business's will restructure.

chus
pyotr
-- 
Peter D. Hampe; EKA peterd@polari.online.com
Drat - I've traded my magic beans for a stupid cow!
-- 
Peter D. Hampe; EKA peterd@polari.online.com
Drat - I've traded my magic beans for a stupid cow!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61167 alt.politics.clinton:17575 alt.president.clinton:612
From: mccall@Oswego.EDU (D. Todd Mccall)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: <Expletive Deleted>: EDIT THE SUBJECT LINE!
Date: 21 Nov 92 01:37:21 GMT
Reply-To: mccall@oswego.Oswego.EDU (D. Todd Mccall)
Organization: Instructional Computing Center, SUNY at Oswego, Oswego, NY

In article <1992Nov20.123814.14902@njitgw.njit.edu> aaron@funcity.njit.edu (Aaron Watters) writes:
>TO THOSE WHO RESPOND TO RECENT OBSCENE CONTENTLESS POSTINGS:
>   FOR GOD'S SAKE EDIT THE OBSCENITIES OUT OF THE SUBJECT LINE!	-a

  One little suggestion.....Let up on the Caps-Lock key would you? All Caps is annoying
  and difficult to read. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,ca.politics
From: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:53:17 GMT
Organization: QueerNet

In article <1992Nov19.051309.18388@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
|> In article <13241@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
|> writes:
|> #The excuse give was that
|> #no political groups were allowed in the parade -- yet NAMBLA
|> #states that its goal is political -- repeal of the age of
|> #consent laws.
|> 
|> Hmm, that's a bit strange. I generally support free speech, even of
|> Illionis NAZI's, but I don't agree with inconsistencies.

That's because Cramer's claim is a typical Cramerian lie.  The reason given was
that no candidate groups were allowed in the parade.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG              {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!sgiblab!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:47:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.003048.1113@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <87312@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>>In 18392@oracle.us.oracle.com, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov13.080701.15087@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>>>>Uh, excuse me, but isn't Anita Hill a right-wing Republican?  Why on
>>>>earth would Bill Clinton appoint her to anything?

>>>Because, of course, she isn't.

>>>Hill's conservativism was a convenient lie at the time of the Thomas
>>>hearings.  Now that it is no longer necessary it is being dropped.

>>What evidence do you have that this was a lie?  

>Her own statements.  The people who are pushing her for head of EEOC
>are also aware that this is a lie.  Why don't you ask them?  Do you
>really think that they would be pushing her if she was a conservative
>Republican?  (Of course you may just think that they are ignorant
>idiots, but if so why don't you come out and say so?)

Well, as far as I can tell, the only one seriously considering this is
Rush Limbaugh.  So I guess I'll come right out and say that he's an
ignorant idiot.

>>Why do you say that it is now "being dropped"? 

>Because people are now pushing her for a position in the Clinton
>Administration.  This would be pretty stupid unless the general
>consensus was that it was no longer necessary to lie about her beliefs.

>>Who is dropping it?

>The people who are pushing her for an administration post.

Do you think she would have had an administration post in the past if
she was *not* a conservative?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 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:60328 alt.politics.elections:23886 alt.rush-limbaugh:9778 talk.rumors:1297 alt.activism:18845
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:47:19 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Nov11.192822.27139@osf.org> buchman@osf.org (Terri Buchman) writes:

>	Women start making some gains in income.  We're still getting 68
>cents for every dollar a man makes.  Women are still overwhelming
>stuck in the pink collar ghetto/low paying wage jobs.  Less than one
>tenth of one percent of the CEO's in this country are women.  The
>percentages for people of color are equally bad.  If there are
>quotas, then where the hell are the quotees?
>
>TerriB.

You are going to have to give up this myth.  The US Bureau of Labor Statistics 
shows that now, all women earn 82% of what men earn, and better than that, 
women who do not take off extended periods of time for childbirth or to 
take care of a parent, earn 102% of what men earn.

Ted

-- 
            

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ge@mcnc.org (George Entenman)
Subject: Democrats "fixated" on the deficit!
Organization: MCNC Center for Microelectronics, RTP, NC
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:54:55 GMT

This morning, retiring Republican Congressman Ben Webber (from
Michigan?) gave an editorial on NPR's Morning Edition.  He spoke of
Democratic Congressmen "fixated" on the deficit.  This prompted me to
call and leave the following message (more or less) on NPR's voice
mail:

	I knew that Ronald Reagan had changed the Republican Party's
	traditional opposition to deficit spending.

	But it wasn't until I heard retiring Republican Congressman Ben
	Webber this morning, who actually ridiculed Democratic
	Congressmen for wanting to balance the budget, that I
	understood the extent of the transformation of the Republican
	Party.

	The debate over the deficit versus growth is a legitimate one,
	as Ross Perot showed us.

	I hope that Weber's remaining colleagues in Congress will show
	more concern with the deficit than he does.

################################################################################
#  George Entenman				Dan Quayle is more stupid      #
#  ge@mcnc.org					than Ronald Reagan put         #
#  Standard disclaimers apply.			together. - Matt Groening      #
################################################################################
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60375 alt.politics.elections:23914 alt.rush-limbaugh:9799 talk.rumors:1303 alt.activism:18866