HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: More Discussion of Prejudice Against Homosexuality
In-reply-to: mpolen@suntory.mips.com's message of 27 Aug 92 19:39:10 GMT
Organization: pubs
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:19:32 CDT


Jan Bielawski writes:

   >       The New English Bible, which is considered one of the best
   > scholarly translations ... reads
   > 
   > 	"Make no mistake; no fornicator or idolator, none who are
   > guilty  either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves
   > or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will possess 
   > the kingdom of God

Hot Young Star writes:

   |> 	And THIS is the best scholarly translation??

A couple of years ago a revised version of the New English Bible came
out, to correct a number of problems with the original (the original
"New" one, that is).  It should have been called, of course, the Revised
New ..., but instead it's just the Revised English Bible.  It strikes me
as the best modern version, but I don't know if it renders the above
passage differently.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 17:44:49 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep2.032432.10808@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.191507.17372@ncmicro.lonestar.org>
> ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) writes:
>
> > What annoys me is that, although the "anti-choice-to-abort" people seem
> > to think that their arguments are superior, they evidently do not trust
> > women to see this for themselves.
>
> You make it sound as if every woman is pro-choice.

This statement is not correct.

> Women are individuals who have a variety of opinions on abortion.
> Please don't ignore their individuality.

Exactly.  Leave it up to each individual woman to make the decision
for herself.

>       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>  we want to be precise)..."
>    -- Gloria Feldt,
>       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

What exactly is your objection to Judaism, Doug?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: The buck stops where?
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:17:03 GMT

In article <3442@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:
>>|>Thus far in the campaign, George Bush has blamed Congress,
>>|>the press, and now his cabinet for his problems.
>
>Which brings up another point. By bashing congress so hard, how
>does he expect any cooperation from them if he is reelected? Would
>this guy be a lame duck from the beginning?
>
>Mike

I thought that Bush said somewhere in his acceptance speech that he would
'never again cooperate with the Democratic Congress', or something to that
effect. The context was the 1990 budget agreement, which included a tax
increase, but Bush clearly is saying that he will not sign any such thing
again.

Some might suggest that compromise is the essence of democratic (small 'd')
government. Maybe Bush should pay some attention.

- Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:10:52 GMT

pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:

>I disagree.  The credit worthiness of a particular borrower is not 
>determined by the legislature but by the supply of credit.  Individuals
>have a "limit" because creditors will, at some point, no longer risk
>extending more credit.  The same applies to governments.


The government has citizens to bleed dry to pay back their debts. Individual's
have no such power over their employers. A different scenario entirely.


>Despite the
>fact that the U.S. Gov't is highly regarded, I can see a time when the
>competitive market of potential lenders (World Capital) might choose to
>lend elsewhere because the US govt will have such an enormous debt burden
>that lenders will seriously consider the possibility of a default.

Right now, close to ?40%? goes to paying debt service. When an individual
buys a home, they can only have about 36% or so of their gross income
going to pay debts.

The main difference, of course, is that if the government needs more money,
by jove, they'll just increase the tax rate (laffer curve discussion
nonwithstanding.) This ability will encourage outside sources to continue
buying T-bills etc, since they have a misplaced feeling of security.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:07:01 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug20.154755.9413@tc.cornell.edu>, shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
> In article <ac#n28l.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> > 1. Clayton is a not a pig. Why do you call hum one? 
> 
> Claytoon is a pig.  Anyone who's spent any time around
> livestock can tell you that.
> -- 
>        Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

1. I've never met a pig that typed.  I think their hooves get in
the way.

2. I shower daily.  I've never met a pig that did that.

3. I use anti-perspirant.  I've never met a pig that did that.

Oh yes, the gratutitous remark that I just can't resist:

4. I've spent just a little time around livestock, but doubtless
less than Melinda has -- of course, my preferences are not only
straight, but human.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: foucault@netcom.com (Howard Arthur Faye)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 08:18:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <12129@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Or maybe I will take the collection of garbage I've been collecting
>from soc.motss and turn it over to Lou Sheldon at the Traditional
>Values Coalition and the Yes on 9 campaign in Oregon.  You know what
>powerful ammunition this stuff is for their side.
>
Oh, the voices in my head! Make them STOP! PLEASE stop the monkey
music! (spoken in William Bendix' voice)

>Do I make myself clear?

Sure, dude. What kind of underwear do you have on?


-- 
Howard Arthur Faye * Panglossian Acres * Box 7 * Littlerock, CA   93543
                         Fax: 805.944.5958


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Bush the hypocrite
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:01:28 GMT

In article <4768@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
>-Bush's acceptance speech:
>-
>->   That will especially help small businesses.  They create
>->Two-thirds of the new jobs in America.  But my opponent's plan for
>->small business is clear, present--and dangerous.  Besides new income
>->taxes, his plan will lead to a new payroll tax to pay for a government
>->takeover of health care, and another new tax to pay for training.
>-                                                         ^^^^^^^^
>-  And not 5 minutes later....
>-
>->   Here's what I'm fighting for...
>->   --Job training.
>-
>-Huh?
>
>James, thanks for printing the text. However, please note he's fighting
>for job training, not TAXES TO PAY FOR job-training.
>

Ok, he wants job training.  Who's going to pay for it?
(a) surcharge (tax). 
(b) employer 
(c) employee.

On all three of these situations, the employee will end up paying the bulk of
the cost of the training. The tax will have the least impact due to the
deferrment of costs over time. However, on (a) and (b) you can bet your bottom
dollar that the employer will not simply absorb the cost as simply a cost of
doing business.  He will figure a way (lower benefits, lower wages, etc.) to
someway pass the cost onto the people getting the training that in the long
run will benefit him. (c) of course has existed since the beginning of time, so
it really is nothing new.
 
When looking at it this way, if the administrative costs can be maintained (I 
can always HOPE can't I?) the plan by Clinton would be the better of the two.

If the costs of administration is not closely watched, then none of the three
look particularly good to the employee.  None will really impact the employer
from a cost standpoint.

Tom H.



 
>Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
>Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
>Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
>August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?



-- 
==========================================================================       Tom Hyatt                          | My disclaimer:  I am not affiliated        USENET: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org     | with any USENET sites, organizations       RIME:  -->LUNATIC (Tom Hyatt)      | or personnel. The views given by me        Prodigy: KKDH77A (quit yer laffin!)| are mine, and nobody else's.  Nyah!       ==========================================================================
-
---
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals are like the rest of us, right?
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:10:08 GMT

In article <Aug.24.07.46.02.1992.23208@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>I would promptly inform any homosexual who would dare to proposition
>me that my preference is fisting.

Tire-ironing, I heard.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Cultural Elite?
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:14:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.153228.6119@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>
>  Did anyone besides me see the special report on CNN this last weekend about
>  politics and Hollywood? One little stat they mentioned was that 76% of do-
>  nations from Hollywood persons goes to Democrats. It's pretty much uncon-
>  tested that the majority of movie/TV actors, producers, directors, and so
>  on are liberal, and I believe it's these people that Dan Quayle is talking
>  about.
>
>  Just think for a minute -- make a list of conservative TV/movie stars, and
>  a list of liberal TV/movie stars. I guarantee the latter list is much long-
>  er.

etc.

>--
>Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
>strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF

There seems to be a pattern developing here:

The Hollywood elite is liberal.
The media (i.e., new media) elite is liberal
The academic elite is liberal.

A couple questions: how many 'elites' have to be liberal before it starts
to appear that *most* 'elites' are liberal? And if so, why would this be?

Second question: will someone name some 'elites' that are conservative? If
someone can, is there a pattern there as well?

BTW - this use of the word 'elite' if garbage. It's being used as another
tool by Quayle et al to stir up populist resentment of people who are richer
and/or more successful than average. Seeing as how Quayle himself (and Bush,
for that matter) was born into something of an 'elite' family, he's hardly
in a position to bash 'elites'.

Or does it become acceptable by prefixing it with 'cultural', another word,
like 'liberal', guaranteed to stir up the mob even more? The Republicans have
been playing this kind of 'polarization politics' for a long time now, and
I for one am getting pretty sick of it.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Warren Rudman for President? (was George for First Lady?
Keywords: Elections, Candidates, Presidential politics
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:35:11 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

:  So we're stuck again with that classic American problem of having only
:  two viable political parties, and both of them complete horror shows:
:  Nighmare on Pennsylvania Avenue, Aliens, and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre
:  all rolled into one.   Of course there are tiny fringe parties:  the LP,
: the Socialists, etc.  But it's not just that they're not politically viable; 
:  none of their ideas stand up to close scrutiny; all require a degree of
:  religious devotion to whatever their underlying premise is.  

I've been interested in the "lead or leave" initiative headed by
Rudman and Tsongas.  Maybe, if we're lucky, we might see the emergence
of a Fiscal Responsibility Party made up of the responsible, centrist
elements of both current parties.

Then again, maybe too many people, both rich and poor (see the recent
Newsweek article), are riding the gravy train for such a party to ever
have a chance.

--Scott
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers Love Clinton (was: National Health Care)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:19:20 GMT

In <1992Aug12.170300.28190@vuse.vanderbilt.edu> muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller) writes:

>If we want a health care system like Canada's, we would need to:

>	Install a national 10% health care sales tax

>	Cut doctor's salaries in half.

>	Reform tort laws to protect doctors from malpractice.

>	Establish a rationing system to limit costs.

>The last violates the new disabilities laws, the third would never get past
>Congress, the second would require the AMA's cooperation (ie, let more doctors
>graduate from med schools, etc ), the first would be political suicide.

>Therefore, a Canadian health care system is impossible to implement in this     country.
> 
To your first point - do you know how much your employer pays for
your present health insurance? Probably in excess of 20% of your
salary.

REB


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Fair Swap
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 20:20:27 GMT

In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug25164553@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
>In article <BtJsL7.9yu@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> idfriedm@hertz.uwaterloo.ca (id friedman) writes:

>>     Israel has withdrawn from most of the territory.
>
>"Most" here is presumably defined by geographical area.  One could
>easily well choose another measure, such as population or number of
>holy religious sites, which would indicate that Israel has not
>withdrawn from most of the territory.

You illustrate here precisely one of the worst problems in such peace 
agreements, that of post-agreement re-definition of the terms.

Who is to say that the Jordanians or others, perhaps with a
democratically and newly-elected Islamic government, claim after the
return of the vast majority of the West Bank and Gaza but not of
Jerusalem that because Jerusalem constitutes over 90% of the land's
holiness (as defined in the Koran, perhaps), that less than 10% of the
peace should be given in return and that Israel will STILL owe them
more. 


>This is not at all clear.  First, it is very difficult to say that
>compliance in i) is better than compliance in ii), because different
>measures have to be applied.  You are apparently comparing the
>fraction of occupied land mass returned in i) to the fraction of
>nations at peace in ii).  This sounds like apples and oranges to me.

PRECISELY!!!!  This is why land-for-land or peace-for-peace are much
more workable solutions than land-for-peace.  The current approach is
mixing apples and oranges; one side will always be able to say that
they gave away too many apples for the oranges that they have
received!!

WHY NOT PEACE FOR PEACE?

Let's face it, when the Arabs had EVERYTHING that they now demand from 
Israel in terms of land, they were sworn to the destruction of Israel,
not to living in peace with her.  The current demand for land in
return for peace is a sham.  The inability of the Palestinean
delegation to offer anything of substance to the Israelis in the
current stage of the negotiations only proves how bankrupt and
insincere is their quest for peace.

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com               Pat Paulsen for President
American-Occupied New York                    This year he has a real chance!
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Can you flesh out this Nixon quote?
Date: 26 Aug 1992 17:29:33 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <yahnke-260892120359@oleary.macc.wisc.edu>, yahnke@macc.wisc.edu (Ross Yahnke) writes:
|> Can anyone finish and correct this quote from Nixon, made in his farewell
|> to White House staffers when he resigned?
|> 
|> People may hate you, but if they hate you they don't win, unless you hate
|> them back....

...and then you destroy yourself.

How apt, given the person who said it.

|> 
|> Thanks! - Ross

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: pro-live/Hillary inconsistencies
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:33:49 GMT

In article <l9qbciINNp3f@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>
>Is it inconsistent to chide Hillary Clintons support of legal
>rights of children, and then demand that unborn children have
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>legal rights over their mothers?  Is this what the Republican
>party is promoting?
>
>Methinks it is.

There is no such thing as an unborn child or the preborn.

Paul.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.peeves
From: hymowitz@whatever.cs.jhu.edu (Hymie!)
Subject: Re: _liz_ Gets Close to the Truth
Organization: Creative Sensualities dept, Jacquie's House of Underwear
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 22:58:48 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>] The Y chromosome clearly confers unsurpassed wisdom and knowledge.
>] That's why we should listen and obey our men sans questions.
>] Similarly, all those female hormones that wash through pre-menopausal
>] women interferes with her clear thinking and right judgement.

very well said, liz. (assuming you're still talking to me)

>
>Beth,
>{I can call you beth?}

nope... her name is _liz_.  it's more polite if you use the name that
_she_ prefers (i.e. elizabeth).

>Just to clear up the ambiguity here, it is NOT the Y chrome
>that Give Manly Men their Masculine Malenesss.

you mean that years of biology classes are wrong?

>It is the Throbbing Wand of Wonderment, that Tumultuous
>Totem of Truth, The Divine Discriminator of Domination,
>The Most Heavenly Extension, The Pulsating Piston Of Piety,
>The Enhanced Enlongation of Excellence, etc, etc, etc,
>Which Affords unto those Endowed by Our Creator the 
>Capability to Correctly Perceive and Understand all things.

ummm, maybe i missed something, but isn't one the direct result of the
other?

--hymie
hymowitz@cs.jhu.edu                                         hymie@jhuvms.bitnet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People say I'm crazy doing what I'm doing...
--John Lennon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They say I'm crazy but I have a good time.
--Joe Walsh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 01:13:52 GMT

In article <17mtmvINNear@agate.berkeley.edu>
martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>In addition, the ENTIRE individual is defined at conception.  The mother's 
>traits and the father's traits combine to create a new DNA structure
>which equates to a new and unique human being.  Abort the unborn and
>you will never see that combination again.

Oh, please!  Yes, the genetic code of the z/e/f is determined at
conception, and yes, if the woman has an abortion there will never be
another human with that genetic code (the chances are so low as to be
nonexistent for all practical purposes).  But the entire individual is
not, *not*, NOT defined by their genetic code.  This is why identical
twins are different people.

--
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42306 talk.politics.theory:3892 soc.culture.usa:6925 alt.conspiracy:10325