HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: watanabe@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Canadian Cowardice (was: Re: White-colour criminals)
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:13:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1992Oct16.171302.15725
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:

>My younger sister goes to a very ethnically diverse high school.  One
>day, a math test was held (no big deal).  She scored the highest in the
>class, behind a Chinese girl.  The Chinese girl is now *convinced* that
>Mr. Dombrowski, the teacher, is a racist and has said so publicly.  Her
>parents believe her and are furious at the teacher.  Please note that
>this was MATH (not English or history) where the answer is either 
>right, or it is wrong.

>By corollary, my sister is also a racist because she beat this girl in
>a math test.

>That's what I call being treated like a criminal.

Mr. Dombrowski, and to a lesser extent your sister,
 has been the victim of the racism of 1 student
and her parents. While unfortunate, it may come as news to 
you that other ethnic groups -- blacks, asians -- have
also experienced racism. I myself have experienced racism,
but don't claim to be treated as a criminal in Canada because
of a few isolated acts of racism by misguided individuals.

Now, if the school supported the allegation of the Chinese
girl and her parents, and fired the teacher, then I would 
agree with you that there was a problem. 

It seems to me that both you, and the Chinese girl, are 
both exhibiting similar behaviour with the same unfortunate
consequences. Namely, perceiving racism where none exists.
The Chinese girl is perceiving racism by an individual
where none exists; you are perceiving racism by a country
(systematic discrimination against whites) where none exists.

>I also feel I'm being treated like a criminal when stupid Canadians 
>(please note, I have not yet been flamed by an American) employ ever
>so typical sophistry while cutting and pasting my verbiage from all
>over in an attempt to build up their own insecure Canadian 
>personalities.  Once a bronze medal winner, always a bronze medal 
>winner, I guess.

I think you've lost some credibility here by claiming that
you are treated as a criminal because you have been flamed!

Any fool on internet knows that if he/she posts to the net,
he/she is quite likely to be flamed. Don't whine because
you are flamed, and don't base your conspiracy theory
on the fact you've been flamed.

>C. Armour-Kidson
>cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Bush is...
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:17:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.225746.9346@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.095613.5527@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) said:

>> It seems like anytime someone talks about politics there's this
>> seething hatred for our President and Vice-President.

>Not surprising.  I find Bush to be an eminently detestable man, myself.
>(I can't say the same about Quayle because he, like Reagan before him,
>gives the overwhelming impression of being to dumb to be worthy of any
>emotion  beyond a vague sense of distaste.)

"Hawaii is a unique state," he said.  "It is a small state.  It is a
state that is by itself.  It is a -- it is different than the other 49
states.  Well, all states are different, but it's got a particularly
unique situation."

Distaste?  He keeps me laughing.  If he were *president*, he'd be
distasteful.  As VP, though, he's perfect.  

>> I sit to watch an entertainment show and it's a Clinton/Gore
>> soapbox, and people say that's cool, freedom of speech and all that
>> ood stuff, and yet totally lose it when Rush Limbagh comes on- I
>> always hear someone saying how he should be silenced. This comes
>> from people who a few minutes earlier were defending free speech,
>> demanding that someone be silenced.

>Can you give any details about cases where someone has demanded that
>Limbaugh be silenced?  (As opposed to people merely saying that they
>wish he'd shut up, that is.)

>> I have personally lost track of all the times my rights to free
>> speech were taken away. I've been denounced as a racist merely
>> because I oppose the welfare system, I got in trouble in high school
>> for promoting our space program, and one time I was called a racist
>> bigot because I called the rioters in LA murderers and thieves.
>> That's hyprocrisy!

>None of the examples you give look like cases of your rights to free
>speech being taken away.  Being told that your opinions are unpopular
>is not the same thing as being told that you may not express them.

Oh, sure.  Bring logic into the thing.  That's unfair to Republicans.
It's discrimination.  They're not good at it.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,soc.culture.canada
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: NET CHALLENGE
Originator: cs911461@a02.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:09:21 GMT


In article <LABACH.92Oct15105510@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>, labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes:
>> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:

>> So, you hate plagiarism, but the quote above from my .sig that I took from
>> one of your postings and which you used WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION is by Leonard
>> Cohen (or so you say).  Sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me.  No
>> wonder people don't trust you when you talk about how whites are treated as
>> criminals in Canada.

There's a difference between plaigiarism and liking a line.  I honestly
thought you'd be better read than you actually are. Sorry. 

I also modified the line slightly so it's not original.

On the other hand, I think you're 100% guilty of directly plaigiarising
my words for your own gain.  A highly dishonest practice but don't 
worry; I find it flattering.


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d
From: labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Originator: labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:37:19 GMT
	<LABACH.92Oct6084859@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>
	<1992Oct6.173553.18800@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca>
Organization: The Bobby Jurasin Fan Club

In article <1992Oct6.173553.18800@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca>
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes: 
> 
> In article <LABACH.92Oct6084859@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>, labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes:
> >> In article <1992Oct2.000441.27536@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca>
> >> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes: 

> >> > alliance.  Of course this is bullshit; the US military would never fund
> >> > anything at a university where the faculty/student bodies could include
> >> > Cubans, Chinese, Iraqis or worse still, Canadians.
> >> 
> >> Well, the University Department I'm in has received many contracts from
> >> the US and Canadian militaries, and we have students from mainland
> >> China, Eastern Europe, the United States, and Canada.
> 
> 	   Are these visa students directly employed to do top secret
> 	   military work?  I doubt it.  Admit it, you've over-simplified
> 	   the facts to suit your version of reality.  Talk about a
> 	   Canadian tradition.


1) In your original posting, you talked only about US military funding.
You said nothing about "Top Secret" projects.  I told you that we have
foreign students here (in fact some of them do work on these US
contracts) and predicted it wouldn't change your paranoid delusions.
Now you bring up top secret work because your original assertion about
US military spending was a complete fabrication.

I love your accusation of "oversimplication" of the facts.  Strong stuff
coming from a liar who can't keep his definition of US military funding
straight.

2) If we were doing Top Secret work here, I certainly couldn't (and
wouldn't say anything about it on Usenet.

- terry -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Suicidal paranoids will say anything to get laid."
 - Jack (Jeff Bridges) in _The Fisher King_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Rush is...
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:54:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.091858.2383@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>You were asking for examples of alleged liberal hypocrisy concerning
>free speech.  What I was talking about wa not a specific case but rather
>just what I run into on a regular basis.

Oh fine.  No specific examples, but you run into it on
a regular basis.  Duh.

>Whenever the subject of Limbaugh
>comes up in a discussion the first thing heard is some obscenity.

The first obscenity you heard is the one from Rush Lameboy
himself.  Most of the .net comments about ol' Rush are
not especially obscene, unless you consider the
term "fat fascist" obscene.

>I always hear the stupid "fascist Republicans" remark.

The term "fascist Republicans" is necessary to distinguish
members of this subset from the "non-fascist Republicans".
Unless what your are hearing is really 
"stupid fascist Republicans", which is an entirely
different group.

>Now, I'm in
>College Republicans and we never go around heckling the Democrats,
>but some idiot comes up to our table and makes some stupid remark,
>instead of starting an intelligent deabte.

There are a lot of people posting to this group who DO heckle
Democrats (eg., calling them "socialists").  Both Bush and
Clinton are always confronted by hecklers at their 
campaign appearances, unless the particular party thought
police can keep hecklers at a distance.  I think it would
be hard for proponents of any candidate to gain the
moral high ground on the heckling issue.

>Simon


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Originator: cs911461@a01.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: york
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:25:30 GMT


In article <LABACH.92Oct7123044@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>, labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct6.172258.18597@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:
>> > 	   Lookit, that's your interpretation.  Who the hell do you think
>> > 	   you are, Jesus?  Other people are agreeing with me.  Does this
>> > 	   mean that they're all children too?  
>> 
>> No, it doesn't mean they're all children, because I've yet to see anyone
>> else put forward your sort of bizarre views of how hard white people
>> have it in Canada.  I'd say that's largely because the people who would
>> agree with you are in therapy for their paranoid fantasies.

	They've all mailed me because they're too scared about getting
	called Nazis.  Stop putting words in my mouth.  White people
	ARE regarded as second class because official multiculturalism
	does nothing to encourage their role in society.  Only visible
	minorities are protected.  This either assumes that either
	we're better or they're more special.  Whatever it may mean,
	there is now a stratification of rights in Canada, with French
	Canadians at the top, followed by ethnic minorities.  All of
	these groups are xenophobes and are now used to the idea that
	they are somehow entitled to a free lunch.

>> 
>> 						Maybe you're just one of 
>> > 	   these non-WASP bigots I'm describing.
>> > 
>> 
>> And of course, a non-WASP's opinion is not worth anything in your
>> fantasy role-playing view of life.  I'm waiting for you to tell me I'm a
>> traitor to the white "race".

	Why would I do that?  I'm not a racist.


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca

Xref: sparky alt.politics.democrats.d:208 alt.politics.bush:8748 talk.politics.misc:51141 alt.politics.clinton:9890
From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
	<1992Sep28.155144.769@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
	<1992Sep28.223533.11410@csi.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1992Oct5.191244.19614@ra.msstate.edu>
	<NELSON.92Oct10233432@cheetah.clarkson.edu>
	<RLK.92Oct11002624@underprize.think.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:43:26 GMT

In article <RLK.92Oct11002624@underprize.think.com> rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:

   In article <NELSON.92Oct10233432@cheetah.clarkson.edu> nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:

         cea1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Carolyn E. Adams-Price) writes:

         And....to all of you who think the problem with the US is
         business regulation, I say, I hope you drown in the pollution
         or are hurt by an end to safety standards that an end to business
         regulation would cause!!!!!

      Carolyn, I think you're confusing causes.  Pollution is fundamentally
      a private property problem, where someone lets their private property
      get onto public property.  You notice that one party polluting another
      party's private property just isn't a problem.

   This is not true.  For example, much of the toxic waste problem occurs
   on private property.

Yes, this is a serious problem.  The private property owner cannot see the
pollution and may not be able to react to it until long afterwards.  You also
have the problem of corporate limited liability, where a company can pollute
a piece of property and then go out of business.  There is no entity left to
pay for the cleanup.

   And this argument does not address the issue of air pollution in
   its various forms (everything from local smog to depletion of the
   ozone layer), nor does it address pollution in the oceans, neither
   of which are eligible for private ownership in any way I can
   envision.

Yes, there are both commons, best addressed at the regulatory level.

--
--russ <nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
Peace is not the absence of war.  Peace is the presence of a system for
resolving conflicts before war becomes necessary.  War never creates peace.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.democrats.d:232 soc.culture.canada:7594
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Originator: cs911461@a01.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: york
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:06:33 GMT


In article <LABACH.92Oct7130609@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>, labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes:

>> [bunch of quotes deleted]

>> I suggest to you that you might make a better debating partner if you
>> had the slightest clue about what you were discussing and if you took the
>> time to discover Einstein's beliefs on the role of science in society
>> before you assumed he would agree with you just because you are the
>> mighty cs911461.
>> 
>> Plus, you might do something about your delusions about the great anti-white
>> conspiracy.


Well, thanks for the quotes.  You're at least good for that.

But back to business... You're assuming that I haven't read a thousand
books (have you?) and that this is the key to successful debating.

A debate with you is as follows:

1) I say something radically different
2) You misread it as offensive
3) I attempt to rectify
4) You call me a Nazi who doesn't read anything but Family Circus
5) Repeat


Now look here, pick up a reprint of The Economist's survey of Canada.
You'll understand what I mean.  Talk to the British Intelligence Service
and they'll tell you that civil war is around the corner in Canada.  Talk
to anyone on Wall St. and they'll tell you why we're a bad investment.

If I'm constantly quoting, I'm not doing any thinking.  Then, thinking
(about anything other than Marxism) is strictly un-Canadian.  I think
it's really the only un-Canadian activity that there is.  God knows
anything else goes...


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca




Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:14:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.020632.8995@board8.uucp> skinny@board8.uucp (skinny) writes:
>cea1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Carolyn E. Adams-Price) writes:

>>And....to all of you who think the problem with the US is
>>business regulation, I say, I hope you drown in the pollution
>>or are hurt by an end to safety standards that an end to business
>>regulation would cause!!!!!

> What about regulating pms? Take a couple of Midol, get some rest and
>start looking for a job in the real world so you'll understand where
>money comes from.

It sure did George McGovern some good.  After he left government and started 
a hotel business (which subsequently went bust, in part because of government
regulation) he got a lesson in economics that made him repudiate his 
previous policies regarding state control of business.  It's too bad he didn't 
learn that BEFORE he entered government.

Perhaps Carolyn would like bureaucrats or businessmen telling her what kind
of psychological research she will be allowed to undertake?  After all, 
we can't have researchers running free of social control coming up with 
dangerous ideas.

--Brian


Xref: sparky alt.politics.democrats.d:211 alt.politics.bush:8809 talk.politics.misc:51250 alt.politics.clinton:9969
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:27:43 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <BvznnH.34B@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.020632.8995@board8.uucp> skinny@board8.uucp (skinny) writes:
>>cea1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Carolyn E. Adams-Price) writes:
>
>>>And....to all of you who think the problem with the US is
>>>business regulation, I say, I hope you drown in the pollution
>>>or are hurt by an end to safety standards that an end to business
>>>regulation would cause!!!!!
>
>> What about regulating pms? Take a couple of Midol, get some rest and
>>start looking for a job in the real world so you'll understand where
>>money comes from.
>
>It sure did George McGovern some good.  After he left government and started 
>a hotel business (which subsequently went bust, in part because of government
>regulation) he got a lesson in economics that made him repudiate his 
>previous policies regarding state control of business.  It's too bad he didn't 
>learn that BEFORE he entered government.

Good point.  You know, George Bush got his start in West Texas (Midland)
selling drill bits. Then he went on to found Zapata with the Leidke brothers.
He spent almost 20 years in business.

Bill Clinton also got his start in Texas, running the McGovern campaign
in East Texas. From his earliest days, Clinton's spent his time in the
political world, far from the cares of payrolls and profits.  Spending
just a few years outside of politics might have shaped Clinton differently.

Pat
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d
From: labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Originator: labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:58:59 GMT
	<LABACH.92Oct6084859@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>
	<1992Oct6.173553.18800@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca>
Organization: The Bobby Jurasin Fan Club

In article <1992Oct6.173553.18800@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca>
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes: 
> In article <LABACH.92Oct6084859@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>,
> labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes: 
> 
>> > saying.  Of course, science students are all in favour for it and it's
>> > usually humanities and fine arts who oppose it.  If someone were to make
>> > a perfectly legitimate statement like: "Science is science; there is no
>> > such thing as 'military' science", they'll tar and feather you.

By the way, chuckles, I'm a physicist.  Just so you don't think all
scientists agree with your paranoid delusions.  I also helped found the
U of Saskatchewan chapter of Canadian Student Pugwash, a group of
science students who take the time to consider the morality of their
work and of science.  Scientists with morals are not as non-existent as
you'd like to believe.

> >> Of course, people like Einstein and Oppenheimer wouldn't agree with you,
> >> but they probably wouldn't count as scientists to you because they
> >> didn't listen to Rush.
> 
> 	   Oh yeah?  Quote them!

Like shooting a really stupid fish in a barrel...

"We scientists, whose tragic destination has been to help in making the
 methods of annihilation more gruesome and more effective, must consider
 it our solemn and transcendent duty to do all in our power in preventing
 these weapons from being used for the brutal purpose for which they
 were invented,  What task could possibly be more important for us?
 What social aim could be closer to our hearts?"
 - Albert Einstein
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Originator: cs911461@a01.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: york
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:36:34 GMT


In article <LABACH.92Oct7125231@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>, labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct6.173553.18800@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:
>>    In article <LABACH.92Oct6084859@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>, labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes:
>>    >> Of course, I'm sure the fact that a blatant counter-example like this to
>>    >> your paranoid fantasies won't change your mind.  (WHY do they let
>>    >> undergraduates post to Usenet?)
>> 
>> 	   You're assuming that undergrads are garbage just like you
>> 	   assume WASPs are garbage... predjudiced faux-liberal.
>> 
>> And I'm not even prejudiced against you yet, because I honestly suspect
>> that you are in need of either some real life experiences or psychiatric
>> counselling to rid you of your paranoia about people of other races and
>> religions.

Just because I don't agree with your infantile ideal view of the world
I suddenly need mental counselling?  Who the hell do you think you are?
Some Platonic-entity of a Canadian?  

I'm declaring multiculturalism a noble but dead idea.  It can't work and
NO MORE MONEY BE NEED SPENT TRYING TO GET IT TO WORK.  I'm not advocating
the physical destruction of anyone nor am I advancing hatred.

This is further proof that a white person cannot even mention the issue
of race relations without being called a racist.

Abolish racism in all it's forms.


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,soc.culture.canada