HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Another biblical brilliance from Teddy
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:35:24 GMT

In article <Oct.7.08.05.10.1992.24891@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.041819.16526@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
@ > No.  The fact that Lot offerred his daughters is only reported, not
@ > condoned.  (And this also applies to the later episode when his
@ > daughters caused him to get drunk and then had sex with him.)

@  That, and a lot of other Biblical mischief, is not criticized
@  _anywhere_.

>Well, actually, yes it is.  Take a look at the books of Leviticus and
>Deuteronomy, for example.  (Hint: Lot lived before these books were
>written.)

	I know that L and D forbid incest, but Lot's daughters go
uncriticized. However, L and D do not seem to forbid offering one's
daughters to lecherous strangers just to keep them away from some
guests who showed no difficulty in protecting themselves.

	There is also the question of who Cain's wife was. Since Adam
and Eve were supposedly the ancestors of all humanity, Cain must have
committed incest with her. That has also gone uncriticized. This is
significant, because God's laws are supposed to be eternal. While on
the subject of this supposed unchangeability, let us not forget the
NT's revoking of some OT laws, like the one against eating pork.

@  How is one to tell what is presented as exemplary conduct and
@  what is just reported?

>By knowing the word of God.

	That does not answer the question.

@  Well, my favorite part of the Bible is Psalm 137.

>Yes, what of it?  What special insight do you have of it?

	That it teaches that it is OK to kill the babies of one's
enemies. (Oh, no! Baby killing!)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: The dem/gop Congress -=SNEAKS=- in a $1.5 T Federal Budget.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  Strike Back.
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:29:00 GMT

While you weren't looking, or were worrying about a bogus
$27 B tax bill which is going to be killed by pocket veto,
the Democrats in collusion with the Republicans passed
a $1.5 Trillion dollar 'FY 93 Federal Budget friday. 

== And now they've gone home to their campaigns. ==

(It's actually $1.17 T in taxes and $326 B in borrowing, until
 the tax bill dies, then adjust accordingly.)

The government is being run on continuing resolutions to
cover spending until the President signs the new bills.

Here is ABSOLUTE PROOF that there is no will to do the hard
work of weeding the pork out of government spending -- BY
EITHER PARTY.

A PRESIDENT FOR THE PEOPLE would CALL THE CONGRESS BACK
in session UNTIL the new budget is TRIMMED of ALL the
one line PORK items tacked on.

And the media has seen fit to tell you only about a bogus
tax bill -- to distract from the fact of your being screwed 
raw again by overspending.


There is a way to get them to act -- A Personal Spending Strike.

Spend as little as you can till once again they make it all right. 

Put off your luxury purchases, till after they act. 

Help now and We Can -- Take Our Country Back.


-- Stephen Tice     Arlington Texas     10-10-92


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Can she just Virtually Gestate?
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 20:05:21 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct9.131231.2659@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:
>] 
>] Before I do, I wanna tuck in this DISCLAIMER:  This is how the argument .
>] I'm not saying whether I believe in it or not.  drieux, lay off with the
>] hurricanes.
>
>So what do you have against veneral British Fighter Aircraft?

Nothing.  I just hate it when YOU use them.  Especially on me.

>] By having sex, a woman has "signed" a virtual "consent form" that reads
>] more or less "God forbid we actually concieve, I will carry this child to
>] term, 'less my life is in danger" So on so forth.
>] 
>] When she is raped, she did not consent to carry the child to term, and so can
>] do with it what she wants.
>
>1. if it is a virtual contract, then why is it not
>still a virtual contract when she is raped? If you 
>actually fight with women you will learn that they
>CAN HURT YOU.
>
>Or are you saying that Virtual Contracts are null
>and void if one party to it did not have Full Virtual consent.
>
'Zactly.

>2. This Virtual Contract Notion is Pleasant, 
>but Avoids the whole of the Argument:
>
>	2.1: If there is EXPRESSED and ACTUALIZED intentionality
>		that no such gestational event should occur, as
>		is indicated by the use of a contraceptive.
>
Think of it like insurance.  Nobody wants the BadThing to happen (I can throw
caps into the middle of words, too), and people take steps to prevent it 
happening, but should it happen, the contract must be fulfilled.

>	2.2: The argument that the UnBorn are Actually Born
>		Prior to their Birth. { or how sum ever it is
>		that AntiAbortionistRhetoriticians wish to put
>		that sentance together. And Folks think my posts
>		are systemically unique... } Which means that it
>		is OK to MURDER an UnBornPerson if there was Rape.

If you stick to the contract, it doesn't really matter if born persons are
UnBorn or what.  ( <--- That can't be right.  You know what I mean)

>3. Can NOT this Virtual Contract be Fulfilled by a Virtual Gestation
>and a Virtual birth Followed by Virtual Children, 
[so on so forth deleted.]

No.  I chose my words badly.  How about "Implied contract?"  (No, an implied
birth won't work either!)  Another example of an implied contract is that
Haircutters are obliged not to turn your hair orange.  Waiters are obliged not
to spill food all over you.  Implied contracts are used all the time.
>ps: is this actually me ?
>Or is it just a posting?
>
Both.  Your net.reality is defined by your postings.
>
Big Al.  Who therefore is a one-liner .sig.
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: MY VIEW OF THE DEBATE
Date: 12 Oct 92 10:35:18
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu's message of 12 Oct 1992 16:30:48 GMT

In article <1bc97oINN91u@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes:

> #3 I think Bush showed that he is a man of character. Nobody can
> question that he is a decent man.

Really?  I question it; I question it very much, in fact.  Bush said,
before the campaign, that he would "do whatever it takes" to get
reelected, and now that the campaign has started, he has demonstrated
that with stunning clarity.

Bush has entered what he calls "campaign mode," in which, he seems to
believe, the ordinary standards of decency just don't apply.  No
attack is too low for him, whether it is distortion of his opponent's
record, or societal divisiveness, or insinuiating that his opponent
isn't patriotic.  

What Clinton and Perot said was right: a President should use the
prestige of his office to take a forceful stand against bigotry and
divisiveness.  Bush has not met that responsibility; instead he has
used bigotry and divisiveness as tools for his own political
advantage.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:03:09 GMT

In article <MATT.92Oct7115038@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.022226.19164@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>
>> He WAS in the SU in '70. He admitted it on TV last night.
>
>"Admitted"?!  It's an "admission" to say that you travelled during
>your Christmas vacation?  
>
>The Bush campaign must be getting really desperate if this is the best
>they can do.
>

There was a cartoon in The New Republic of 10/12/92:

Bush standing on the ramparts of a castle, while the Democrats are
storming the castle's gate.  He's talking to a soldier about to pour
something on top of those pesky Dems: "Jello cubes?  That's all we
have?"


--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Raving a bit, aren't we?
Date: 8 Oct 1992 15:45:57 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct6.134037.4575@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

In an earlier posting, His Modest Stupendous Man blamed the North
Carolina chicken-plant fire on the existence of OSHA, or at least,
that's what he implied.

One of the great paradoxes of "Libertarianism" is that the workers who
are allegedly being wounded by OSHA's existence never call for its
abolition. Instead they call for its expansion and strengthening.
Meanwhile the businesses who are supposedly escaping rigorous
competition through the existence of agenicies like OSHA have
historically opposed them bitterly.

How is it that the agents who are supposed to act rationally to perfect
the Libertarian free market can be so deluded? A most difficult question
for Libertarians! In the same vein, Arrogant Man points out that there
are independent groups like

>	As far as private/consumer groups, there are:

[most of list deleted]
>	Consumer's Union

>	The problem isn't that these kind of groups don't work, rather the
>government prohibits these types of groups in certain areas!  They don't want
>people to see how really bad the EPA, OSHA, VA, etc are!

1. I don't know any doctrine of law that would require manufacturers to
open their plants to a Consumers Union inspection team. I *do* know
doctrines of law that would require manufacturers to open their plants
to a GOVERNMENT inspection team. That's one difference. (Does the govt
PROHIBIT a manufacturer from having an outside group monitor safety as
well as OSHA? Of course not, a fantasy argument.)

2. But to return to the Great Paradox, Consumers Union (the publisher of
Consumer Reports) has always advocated MORE government protections, more
safety laws, more government inspectors, and so on. Heck, one of its two
founders was a real live Socialist. How could the Libertarians trust
such a "deluded" group with helping to police the free market!?

Meanwhile, business groups were outraged at the founding of Consumers
Union. They called it un-American and Communist and tried to shut it
down. (In fact, CU was set up as a membership organization with _CR_
allegedly restricted to its membership partly to avoid legal hurdles set
up by business.) This seems contrary to the points alleged by Stupendous,
but is a verifiable fact.

Libertartian theory probably has an even worse record for historicity than
Marxist-Leninism.

andy
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Debate musings
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:18:07 GMT
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX

In article <farenebt.719208125@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:
>
>Perot wsa a non-factor after winning the 1st debate. Too many
>times, I heard him say, "This, like many other ideas, has tons
>of proposals floating around in Washington but never got adopted..."
>BUT HE NEVER SPECIFICALLY GAVE ONE EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING HE SUPPORTED.
>He did this on gun control and on health care and, I believe, on
>education. I couldn't stand it. Is it lying around the floor
>on Washington? Perhaps. But why did he never give an example of
>one he supported or would support or would propose!!!!!!!!!!!

I think we'll get the answers tonight and Saturday.
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Dornan a Conservative? (was moscow)
Date: 8 Oct 1992 20:24:02 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com
Keywords: homosexuality

Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
|> Mike Polen) writes:
|> 
|> > The current discussion is based around whether or not a homosexual
|> > gene could be passed down.  If homosexuality is hereditary, then
|> > it is not an abomination any more than red hair, average heighth,
|> > or good teeth.  Hardly acceptable to the homophobic, religious
|> > right of which Dornan is a member.
|> 
|> Ahem.  The idea that homosexuality is "hereditary" is utterly absurd.
|> Because, if this is true, then it would be so for only one generation
|> (i.e., handed down from the homosexual's parents) -- and it would
|> _VERY_QUICKLY_ disappear from the gene pool (given the nature of
|> homosexuals' "sex" habits).  On the other hand, if homosexuality is
|> indeed genetically determined, then it is much more likely the result
|> of a congenital birth defect.

Thank you Ted.  Your earlier posts imply you are religious and believe
in God.  If so, you must believe that he is responsible for the defect,
and therefore homosexuality is not an abomination any more than a missing
finger or bad eye-sight.  Or should we discriminate against them too.

On the other hand, I earlier agreed with you on the "hereditary" 
results, but others with biology training have said "aint so."
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: GORE/QUAYLE/STOCKDALE: VP debate text (10/13) part 1/2
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:59:11 GMT
Organization: Banzai Institute

In article <1992Oct14.191346.18074@cc.gatech.edu> barrett@cc.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
>  GORE:  Is it an agreement?
>  QUAYLE:  It is a commitment.
>  GORE:  Oh.
>  (Laughter)
>  QUAYLE:  Let's talk about, let's talk about--
>  GORE:  Well, he said he'd--
>  BRUNO:  Let him talk, Senator.
>  QUAYLE:  Lighten up here, Al.
>  (Laughter and applause)
>  BRUNO:  Go ahead.
>  QUAYLE:  Let's talk about getting agreements.  You know, the

A verbatim rendering of this section was previously posted to rec.humor.funny:

-From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
-
-[Gore]    Is it an agreement?
-
-[Quayle]  It is a commitment and uh...
-
-[Gore]    Oh-oooh, so...
-
-[Quayle]  Well, let's - let's talk --
-
-          Let's - let's - let's talk --
-
-          Let's - let's talk about --
-
-[Gore-at     Well, he said it's "done".  [last word unclear - may be "a deal"]
-same time]
-
-[Quayle]  Let's - let's talk about --
-
-          Let's talk --                   [short pause]
-
-          Lighten up here, Al.            [audience laughter]
-
-          Let's - let's ta --
-
-          Let's talk about getting agreements.

I think we've found the "repeat" button...

-- 
	Jim Gillogly				jim@rand.org
	U.S. National Debt: $4,096,690,446,280  Your Share: $16,029
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: case@infonode.ingr.com (Bill Case)
Subject: Re: Is Perot an idiot or am I?
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:40:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.131908.10578@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.150957.25152@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver) writes:
>> Question: Did Perot, in his half-hour commercial or at the debate say something to the effect of 
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>      Look at our problem with Japan, all we get from them is radios, TVs
>>      and VCRs, which will fall apart in five years, and they have our MONEY!!
>> 
>> Did he say anything resembling this? If he didn't, I'm the idiot (albeit a 
>> minor one).  If he did say it, he is an extreme idiot.  I wouldn't be surprised if he did say it, in general his economics stinks!
>> 
>
>I don't remember it in the debate and I didn't see the infomercial...but...

I remember it.  Seems he said that Japan has our money,  which increases
in value through Japan bank loans,  while we have purchased goods which lose
value rapidly over time.  Why is that idiotic?  It's a generality,  but
largely true.  Check the list of largest world banks.  In terms of
world economics,  if I trade my manufactured goods for your currency, in
an out-of-balance way, then you lose - but you're entertained.  
Buy 20,000 Toyotas for 20 million bucks,  keep them six months,  then trade 
them back for currency.  Your 20 mil has increased to 20.5 mil in Japan,  
and you can get 12 mil back for your Toyotas.
From: steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin)
Subject: Re: ==> Over 500 Economists Endorse Clinton (II)
XXXDate: Tue, 13 Oct 92 23:36:42 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
XXXMessageID: <A700AB9A64010642@steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: U S WEST, MRG
NntpPostingHost: steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com
Distribution: usa
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:41:47 GMT

In article <92286.152254U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> , U56503@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>List of over 500 economists endorsing Governor Bill Clinton (con't.)
>
> JAMES GALBRAITH Univ. of Texas

       <SNIP!>

I am reminded of what happened when Hitler was angry over Einstein's
theory of Relativity since Einstein was a jew. He went out and got
100 scientists to sign their names to a document that 'proved' that
Einstein was wrong.

When asked what he thought about this Einstein responded: 
 "If I was wrong, it would take only 1 scientist to prove it!"

With the names on this list, I am afraid my vote against Bill Clinton
is now insured! Economists are a perverse lot who are seldom correct
about anything. When Economics becomes a real science, I will be
interested in such endorsements.

        Steve Martin
        steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
 bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
 tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson
From: lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 12 Oct 92 05:02:32 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle

In article <10OCT199220515401@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
: In article <1992Oct10.233650.14720@nntp.uoregon.edu>, eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes...
: 
: >It was a normal trip for young scholars.
: 
: If it was his first trip in the Soviet Union, then also likely a
: memorable experience. I wonder why he won't talk about it... if
: it was just a normal trip?
: 
I think that it is not at all unusual to have only vague
recollections of a trip that took place 23 years ago.  In 1974
I had a wonderful trip to Europe, but I doubt I could speak
very precisely about any person I met there or what I did on a
particular date, etc.  I can tell you what cities I visited
and some of the sights I saw, but precise memories?  Not very
likely.  


-- 
Larry Baum
Computer Science Organization
Boeing Computer Services     uucp:       uw-beaver!bcsaic!lbaum
(206) 865-3365               internet:   lbaum@atc.boeing.com       
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:21:00 GMT

In article <4C4-DjA@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu writes...

>A smaller economy will generate less tax revenue than a larger economy.  

Not if that larger economy is based on expansion of the government.

The "government sector" includes defense contractors and workers, 
academics and researchers, and other suppliers to government, (in 
addition to the direct employees of government in the military and
other services.) Every tax dollar they pay comes out of their income
which is already *government* provided money. 

And since the system is subject to mismanagement and criminal abuse,
the shrinking private sector also foots increasinly more of a load
of extra taxes to pay for the increase of the government sector.

A smaller government will produce more tax dollars, since less of the 
money flows are captured in the goverment sector "vortex."

>James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu

-- Stephen Tice

"From those who have it shall be given. And from those who have not
it shall be taken away."
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Monday, 12 Oct 1992 14:48:21 PST
From: Martin L. Dart (415) 926-2745, DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU.
 <DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Jim Baker for President!!!

So GWHB has finally announced what his plan of action would be on
the domestic front.  He said, and I'll paraphrase here, "...I'll
go to Jim Baker and I'll say 'Jim, I want you to jump in there and
do for domestic policy what you did with foreign policy'.  And he'll
go and meet with the members of congress and get something going..."
So, what does that leave for GWHB to do?

Bushs' most inglorious moment had to be when he got up there and said
"Hey, our economy is moving right along!  We've got low interest rates,
low inflation...", I was on the edge of my seat waiting for him to
say "Prosperity is just around the corner!".  That guy is so out of touch
it's frightening.  When he says things like that it makes him appear
ignorant.

Now you can say all you want about Slick Willey, but I'd rather have
someone who's slick than someone who's stupid and oblivious to what's
happening around him.

Or maybe, just maybe, Bush and the GOP don't really want to win this
one.  Maybe they know that our banks are on the edge and that we're
about to fall into another depression, and they don't want a republican
to be at the helm when it happens.  Even though it's republican supply
side economics that will have caused it.

Marty Dart
My opinions are mine and mine alone.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:55:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <BvpzrI.7nF@well.sf.ca.us> rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford) writes:

>The earliest mention I can quickly find of Perot has a 1973 date on
>it.  That's two years *after* the founding of the Libertarian Party.
>Perhaps you can show us some evidence for your claim, such as dates of
>other Perot media appearances before 1971.

Isn't Perot in his 50's.  That would mean that Perot has been around
since the 1940's.

I guess that would qualify as predating the Libertarian Party.  :^)

Now the real question.  Does any of this matter?


-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com