HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ))
Subject: Re: More War Drums
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 13:02:01 GMT

trd54583@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (green spleen...) writes:

[posting results of "bad-trip" deleted]

>*This public service message has been brought to you by
>	the green spleen (patent pending)

Do the net a favour and save us the bandwidth next time.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net     /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!anomaly!mpd         /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Xref: sparky alt.activism:14895 alt.discrimination:3884 talk.abortion:31955
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.discrimination,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Summary: Never let a misogynist define misogyny
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 16 Aug 92 16:39:31 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug13125458@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
#mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
# #sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes:
#
# ##	The "medical reasons" you cite no doubt include things like being
# ##stressed because the poor girl can't fit into her new swimming suit. 
#
#	I hereby nominate Steven for
# #MostDisgustingMisogynisticProLiferPigofthe Week, based on the above
# #quote.
#
#Why?  The above quote isn't misongynist, it's anti-trite-reasons-for-abortion.
#
#I guess you aren't?

I'm not M. Price, of course - these are my opinions.

On what do you base your belief that women have abortions
for trivial (I'll assume that you don't know what trite
means, since I can't imagine anyone defending being "anti-
trite-reasons-for-abortion.") reasons?  Do you think that
women make life decisions on whim?  Do you see that this
reveals a general disrespect for women?

Susan
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: maxwell@fnalf.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: reagan
Organization: What does *this* button do!?
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:38:58 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalf.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Aug18.220719.8243@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
> cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY) writes:
> 
> 
>>pat buchannan, what a man -- i couldn't have said 
>>anything any more damming about the republican party than what came out of 
>>that mans mouth. whose side is he on anyway? i loved the homophobia bit, the 
>>anti-feminisim bit, the anti black bit.
> 
> Hmmm... I guess you were watching a different convention. Why don't you
> quote the relevent parts of Buchanan's speech which were "homophobic",
> "anti-feminist", or "anti-black".

I might take you up on that... I haven't had a chance to check on my Comedy
Central taping-- I don't know how badly Franken stepped on Pig err.. Pat
Buchannan's speech-- 

But maybe the analysis is simpler: can anyone seriously assert that Bat
Buchannan's referrences to HOMOsexuals and LESbians (esp. when you fold in the 
remark about Political Transvestism) was meant in a nurturing, caring 
inclusive way?  Of course not, don't be absurd. 

The really irritating side to all this is that Buchannan gives good speech. His
delivery is superb; it's just the content that makes my skin crawl.

Anyway: got it on tape, so there.

regards.max
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE -- A Quick Introduction (part 1)
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:32:53 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <1242@esl.ESL.COM> drm@stimpy.com writes:
>In article 10336@pony.Ingres.COM, garrett@Ingres.COM (DYSLEXICS OF THE WORLD, UNTIE) writes:
>
>Brenneke et al have been thouroghly debunked.  The New Republic had
>a fine cover article on it that blew the conspiracy theories out of the
>water; the October Surprise advocates were reduced to theorizing
>about Bush being ferried across the Atlantic in SR-71s and similar
>nonsense.  I believe even the Village Voice came to the belated 
>conclusion that Brenneke was a pathological liar.
>
> ---
>Don McGregor | Life is like high school, only with money and guns. 
>drm@esl.com  | 

The New Republic article (and one from Newsweek at the same time) were
pretty poor reporting.  I saw a refutation of them soon after they were
published.  Also, they were published right _before_ the so-called
definitive book on the subject was published.  Brenneke is only one
source among many, and not so crucial to the case.  The case centers
on Casey's presence in Madrid, not Bushs.  Casey was at a meeting in
London at the time of the alleged Madrid meeting, only a short flight
away.  The newsweek article made the mistake of interpreting an
_expected_ attendence record as an _actual_ attendence record.  His
name on this record does not mean he was there.  This is according to
an interview with the person who made the expected attendence record.

The congressional inquiry decided that Bush wasn't involved.  The Village
Voice has always doubted the October Surprise theory, so their
statement about Brenneke is not surprising.  The Newsweek and NR
articles make some incredible leaps of faith and assumptions.  The
characterization of Brenneke's trial in Newsweek (which he won) 
demonstrated their bias.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky alt.activism:14753 talk.politics.misc:39409
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Never again.  How soon we forget.
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:36:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug12.144041.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, maxwell@fnalf.fnal.gov writes:
...
> Well, for me, the point is that the American News Media *lies* and *distorts*
> what it reports.

	Point taken, but it's not just the US media reporting it.

...
> It's not a case of saying "sorry, you're just not worth it".  It *is* a case of
> saying, to Uncle Sam and his bootlicks (ABC-CBS-NBC-PBS-CNN) :"You are liars.
> You have been caught lying to us time and time and time again. Why should we
> trust you?" 

	If someone knocks on your door and yells "my house is on fire" will you
call the fire dept or go and verify it first?

	Yes, the media finds a story first, and worries about veracity later. 
But in this case the charges are both strong enough and deadly enough that we
need to act ASAP both to verify and be able to stop it upon confirmation.

	To me, there's little doubt that ethnic cleansing is going on.  It's in
keeping with past Serb behaviour.  The camps are merely another way of the
Serbs ensuring that the areas in question are open for Serb colonisation
afterwards.

	But, how can we know for sure unless we go there?  Sitting around
talking about it will not get us the answers.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: Dorothy Morse <dmorse@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Date: 16 Aug 92 13:34 PDT
Subject: Keep up pressure for Somalia
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1296500289:000:1638
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmorse    Aug 16 13:34:00 1992


From: Dorothy Morse <dmorse>
Subject: Keep up pressure for Somalia

/* Written  1:26 pm  Aug 16, 1992 by dmorse in cdp:nonviolent.act */
/* ---------- "Keep up pressure for Somalia" ---------- */
To all of those interested in acting for Somalia:

This is not the first time that aid shipments have been announced as
imminent.  In late July, Boutros Ghali got a UN order to start airlifts,
but as of August 5, only *one* had been made, and that coincided with
the visit of a French minister of health and humanitarian affairs to
Somalia (he expressed shock and horror at the mass deaths by starvation).

My fear is that these Pentagon shipments could turn into "token gestures"
if the public assumes that "the situation is now taken care of" and
turns away its attention.

This response by the Bush Administration is surely a result of international
outcries and pressure--and some of this was certainly generated by the
sterling humanitarians of peacenet and our sister networks.

We must keep up this pressure, to ensure that deliveries expand to the
amounts truly needed and *continue* until the population is out of danger.

Many people have worked on this cause, and are probably quite fatigued.
But new people are becoming involved.  I hope the old people will take a
break and then send *one more fax* or make *one more phone call*.  I hope
the new people will "take up the torch" and start faxing and phoning like
mad.  As the International Red Cross said in July, "millions of lives
depend on our capacity to care."

(P.S. "old people"  --it's all right if you send a lot more faxes than one,
of course.)

Thanks so much.
Dorothy
From: Dorothy Morse <dmorse@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:41 PDT
Subject: SUNET faxes from peacent, IGC
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1296500294:000:806
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmorse    Aug 18 19:41:00 1992


From: Dorothy Morse <dmorse>
Subject: SUNET faxes from peacent, IGC

/* Written  7:39 pm  Aug 18, 1992 by dmorse in cdp:soc.cult.afric */
/* ---------- "SUNET faxes from peacent, IGC" ---------- */
Support has explained to me how you can successfully use the SUNET
numbers from email on IGC networks (peacenet, econet, etc.).

You go to email, and at the To: prompt you just fill in the number
Bernhard gave, e.g. Boutros_Ghali@f00912129634879.fax.sunet.se

What you *don't* do is precede this by "fax:" as you do in regular
peacenet faxing.

I finally got a fax through to James Kunder tonight, in rather short
order, using the SUNET number and the instructions above.

Now as to whether the fax is scotfree when going from IGC, I don't
know--there could be some IGC charges.  Haven't found that out yet.

Xref: sparky alt.activism:14940 alt.discrimination:3890 talk.abortion:32112
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.discrimination,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:53:19 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <RJOHNSON.92Aug13125458@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:

>mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
> >sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes:

> >>	The "medical reasons" you cite no doubt include things like being
> >>stressed because the poor girl can't fit into her new swimming suit. 

>	I hereby nominate Steven for
> >MostDisgustingMisogynisticProLiferPigofthe Week, based on the above
> >quote.

>Why?  The above quote isn't misongynist, it's anti-trite-reasons-for-abortion.

     Mr. Johnson, Mr. Arnold believes that women--well, actually girls,
but he probably meant women--will go through six months or more of
pregancy and then have an abortion because they can't fit into their new
swimming suits.
     This seems to me to represent a particularly low opinion of women.

>I guess you aren't?

(i.e., anti-trite-reasons-for-abortion).
     I find it hard to believe that anyone on this group is
pro-trite-reasons-for-abortion. However, I am not reserving the right to
make the decision for an individual woman that her reason is "trite," as
you and Mr. Arnold seem to be doing. Moreover, I am not in favior of
legislating against "triteness," either.


MP
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15175 alt.politics.elections:11101 alt.politics.bush:2307 misc.headlines:5789 talk.politics.misc:40911
From: harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc
Subject: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES" (VII)
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:22:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB

The Decline of America: "We're Number One" in Elderly in Poverty

Percentage  elderly living in poverty 1984-1987:(3)

               ------------------------------
				     ELDERLY
	       COUNTRY              IN POVERTY
               ------------------------------

	       United States          10.9

[More than twice of 2nd worst:]

	       United Kingdom          5.2

	       France                  4.5
	       Sweden                  4.3
	       Australia               4.0

	       Netherands              3.4
	       Germany                 2.8
	       Canada                  2.2

Source: Timothy M. Smeeding, "U.S. Poverty and Income Security Policy in a
Cross National Perspective, October 1991, Luxembourg, October, 1991,
Luxembourg Income Study, working paper 70.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
From page 74 of:

_We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New    
World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.   

New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.   
$10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2  
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   

    "America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.   
    This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The   
    facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But   
    ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation."   

                        -Robert B. Reich, author of The Work of Nations   
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: "Free elections" indeed
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:10:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.211724.14095@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:

>|>>If you could substantiate these claims you would have used them instead
>|>>of tales about harassing trades unionists.

>|>Aparently you read my post somewhat selectively. The quotes document
>|>hassassment of the entire spectrum of opposition to the Sandinsitas.

>You are a bit over eager to claim "selectivity". You did not have evidence of
>anything beyond harassment. I did not take anything out of context. 

1. It was far more than trade unionists. The post indicated that the entire
   spectrum of opposition to Sandinista rule was repressed.

2. The quote also indicated the loss of far more rights than 'harassment'.
   People where jailed without trial, help past release dates, among others.

>|>Guard. Aparently the Sandinsitas rig elections so they can win but the
>|>Salvadorans seem to rig elections so they loose.

>So you are a supporter of Deng Xiaopeng? After all he was imprisoned by the Mao
>just goes to prove he's a good guy.

When Deng wins a popular and free election come back and I'll tell you
what I think of him. I find it telling that you don't consider the 
difference between dictators and elected officials important.

>|>Maybe, but *I* have documented my claims. How about you?

>I documented your lack of documentation for your deathsquad claim. 

I stated in the post that it wasn't documented because it wasn't
relevant to the issue of the fairness of the election. Since then I
have documented the claims.

>  [classic leftist attmept to change the subject when painted into
>    a corner deleted]

The subject here is the fairness and lack thereof in the 84 Nicaraguan
election. I have stated the reasons why it cannot be considered fair,
can you tell me why they should be considered fair?

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------246 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty,seattle.general
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: what to do in former Yugoslavia
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 21:02:42 GMT


I don't know that there are any clear military objectives that
could help solve the situation there. At this point in time.

I think what should be done is that we should use every podium
available -- particularly the UN -- and declare the advantages
of democratic federations over ethnic fiefdoms.

Ethnic division is endless. There is no limit as to how narrowly
we can be divided -- if not by ethnicity, religion and national
origin, then also by eye colour, hair colour and height.

We should be declaring the advantage of constitutional government
where there are equal rights for all, regardless of ethnicity and
colour and language.
We should do this constantly and apply the same principles at home.

We should accept democratic referenda for secession, but we should
never advocate secession. We should support federations of states,
but we should condemn coercive federations. Not because they are federations,
but because they are  coercive.
If it happens, we should work for the reconstitution of these
separate states into unified federations at a later date.

I don't see that "we" can do much else, except deny the further escalation
of weapon sales, sanction those who sell weapons and provide sanctuary
to the refugees. And declare that we will accept only borders changes
decided by referendum and sanction those who alter borders by force.

Frank.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines,alt.desert-storm,talk.politics.misc
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: U.S. "TO PROVOKE IRAQ" on MONDAY
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 21:41:43 GMT

In article <Bt4xn7.4Dv@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>In article <9208170423.AA00702@poly.math.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
>...
>>After a series of interagency meetings in Washington last week, and
>>consultations with British, French, and U.N. officials, Bush and his
>>national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, approved a plan on
>>Thursday calling for U.N. inspectors now in Baghdad to demand access
>
>    Yesterday, it was reported that King Hussein of Jordan was coming
>    to the US for "medical treatment".  Let us see if he meets
>    with Bush, Baker or other senior goverment officials to get
>    a second opinion.
>
>    Whether or not the US will strike Iraqi military targets will IMO
>    largely depends on Bush's standing in the polls after the
>    Republican convention, and the dynamic of those polls between
>    now and the Labor Day.  If, come the Labor Day, Clinton still
>    holds a %15+ lead in the polls, some kind of military showdown
>    with Iraq is likely to occur before the election, probably 
>    right after the Labor Day.  If Clinton's lead is narrowed
>    to single digits, there will be a lot of saber-rattling, but
>    no strike.


My question is whether or not  military action (of this type) 
will do political harm  or good to the Bush campaign. 
I have problems seeing the help that it
will do. You bomb a few buildings and then what? You destroy the evidence
you claim you need and then what?
Althought war mongers may be temporarily pleased with the Rambo treatment,
won't it do more damage than good politically in the long run?
For one thing, both Egypt and Syria say they will not participate.
Iraq is obviously not occupying Kuwait. 
The Iraqi people are likely to rally behind Hussein if Iraq is attacked.
Surely most Americans will see this as stupid brutality rather than a
brilliant manoeuver. 

Why would they do it? (I don't even see this as a method of teaching
lessons in obedience...the child will gain more than the parent, surely.)

Frank.
From: rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Houston, TX
	<1992Aug17.185319.26187@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
	<RJOHNSON.92Aug18092840@conus.shell.com>
	<1992Aug20.005221.14169@s1.gov>
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:33:05

Note the Followup line -- this topic is too spread out.

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
 >rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
 >>those who consider abortion reasonable family planning, or have them
 >>because pregnancy would interfere with vacation plans....

 >   But what _are_ legitimate reasons to get an abortion???

Well, the glib answer is, "those reasons that are not illegitimate," but
I expect you wanted them enumerated.  I will be severely flamed regardless
of what I say, but I will attempt a list that will probably have left out
several items that I would agree belong in it:

	Situations in which the trauma of childbirth endangers the mother
	- unusual medical risk of carrying the child to term

	Rape & Incest
	- I would agree that the trauma of these would compound if the
	  mother were to take the child to term, seriously impeding
	  recovery.  These are rare cases (especially if the rape victim
	  reports it immediately), though they are a mainstay of
	  abortion rights proponents.

Some situations I would oppose abortion for:

	Scheduling children -- "I don't want/can't afford a[nother] child
	right now." or "They would be only a year apart."

	Birth control failure -- sorry, folks.

If anyone has other situations that they'd like *my* opinion on, send e-mail.

If there is interest in compiling lists of possible situations and people's
thoughts about whether they constitute valid reasons for abortion, I'll
take e-mail of situation-opinion form and try to compile them and post them
back in a week or so (assuming I get sufficient mail).  If you're opposed
to any restrictions on abortion, go ahead and send mail -- with a reason, if
you like -- and I'll summarize those as well.
--
Roy Johnson, who is not Kibo
Shell Development Company (but speaking for myself)
"There's a big difference between being a lesbian and being a male!"
			-- tabn3@isuvax.iastate.edu (Griffy)
Xref: sparky alt.activism:14761 talk.politics.misc:39454