HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:14:00 GMT
 <1992Oct11.030319.9764@midway.uchicago.edu> <21098@plains.NoDak.edu> <1992Oct11.174506.26506@midway.uchicago.edu>
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct11.174506.26506@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes...
>In article <21098@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>>The question is, would you have sex with someone you know has AIDS, and trust
>>your life to a condom?  Do you teach your kids "I know you're little more than
>>a rabbit, here, have a condom"?  Isn't the big push toward "safe" sex a
>>little like saying if you play Russian roulette with only one round in the
>>chamber it's safer than playing it with six?  Since the failure rate of
>>condoms is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-30%, isn't continuing to
>>condone "playing around" about the same as condoning Russian roulette? 
> 
>Only if sex were as consistently fatal as being shot in the temple.
>It isn't.  You can't get HIV from someone who isn't infected with it.
>The chances of transmission if someone is infected with it is
>remarkably small.  And, finally, once you start cutting off risk
>groups, the percentage of people actually infected with HIV is also
>minimal.
> 
>Brad, you're posting from North Dakota.  Do you know how many people have
>ever gotten AIDS in North Dakota?  I'd be surprised if it were in 
>triple digits.  My guess is, over the last ten years, a couple of dozen
>at most.

You are almost exactly right.  The total number of AIDS cases in North Dakota
reported to the CDC is 25.  It has the lowest AIDS rate of any state in the
U.S.  There were only 5 new cases from July 1990 to June 1991 and only 1
new case from July 1991 to June 1992 (0.2 cases per 100,000 population).

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10921 talk.politics.misc:52370
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The lie Al "did not" Gore can not deny
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:59:23 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <Bw66D5.FMC@unix.amherst.edu>, pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN) writes:
> Stupendous Man (demon@desire.wright.edu) wrote:
> : 	Al Gore was indeed pro-life, then he switched to pro-choice.  After the
> : debate (NBC?) waved a letter he wrote to someone who gave him a chunk of change
> : saying how proud he was to be pro life.  Gag.
> : 
> : 	So much for that "did not" denial :).
> : 
> Is this before or after Bush went from pro-choice to pro-life in 1980?
> 
	After.

	I'm not a Bush backer.

	Oops.
:)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Latest poll: one person polled, landslide for candidate X!
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:08:10 GMT
X-Posted-From: eng-nxt10.cso.uiuc.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
:Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
:> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
:>>	About these "polls" with less than 2000 people....
:>>	500 people = +- 10% error
:>>	1000 people = +- 5-6% error
:>>	2000 people = +- 3% error
:>>	Statistics in action.
:> 	Not to put too fine a point on it, but what's your source for the
:> notion that error variance is a funtion of sample size alone?  There is some
:
:Our statistics class in high school.  Granted, that was way back during
:the 1980 elections :).

Modern statisticians recognize that the total population has something
to do with the accuracy of a survey.  

Say you want to compile statistics on how a small town is going to
vote in an upcoming election.  The town has 2000 eligible voters.
Being good citizens, all of the eligible voters are going to participate.
So, you call all of them up and ask them how they are going to vote.
These are truthful folks, and you get 1500 people in favor of Mr. Slimeball,
and 500 people in favor of Ms. Sleazebucket.

The results are: 75% in favor of Mr. Slimeball, 25% in favor of Ms.
Sleazebucket.  The margin of error, as commonsense would dictate, is
ZERO, because you have, in fact, checked with everyone who is able
to vote.  You have the definitive answer as to how the election would
come out if it were held at the time of your polling.

The margin of error is not +/- 3% as you suggest above.  That violates
common sense (as does our current government, but that's another story...).

In the real world, the reliability of an estimate is based both upon
sample size, and the relevant population.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
From: thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Forward an article from another group,
Date: 12 Oct 1992 15:25:57 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.21

In article <1992Oct9.201814.28900@edsr.eds.com> pete@edsr.eds.com writes:
>In article <5907@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
>> If it were politically right for Mr. Clinton to have gone to Moscow, why
>> are there three (or however many) pages missing regarding passport
>> documents? 
>

The FBI investigated this.  They say that there is no real evidence
for tampering, although three items are missing.  The three items
are:

	1) A copy of Clinton's birth certificate.
	2) The check (not the Czech) to pay for his passport
	 application fee.
	3) His original passport photo.

Booga, booga.

Of course, the FBI is under the pay of the Clinton campaign,
as is the state department, so we can't really expect any
decent information to come from them.
--
Thomas Andrews
CenterLine Software
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: lhartman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lori L Hartman)
Subject: Debate Time?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: oh
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:52:52 GMT




Can someone post the time the debate will be aired tomorrow.  Thanks.
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Red Willie??
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:56:24 GMT

xdedcj@atom.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (dave c jarzabek) writes:

>"I paid my own way, I got a visa, and _mostly_ I was just 
>a tourist."  (emphasis added).

>By his own words, he admits that he was there, at least
>in part, for purposes other than tourism.  This should
>put to rest the comments claiming he was there _strictly_
>as a tourist.  What portion of the trip was pleasure and
>what portion was business??

I heard Gov. Clinton say almost in the same breath as your
quote your extracted out of context that he had visited
various universities at the cities he visited. Since, at the
time he was sortof a "professional student" (which there
is certainly no shame in, even during the height of the Vietnam
war). I feel that he viewed those visits to universities were
not the type of thing a tourist would do but are something an
interested student would do.

Face it, Clinton's trip to Moscow was perfectly innocent an
is an issue only because the other side is trying to make it
an issue.


-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9770 talk.politics.misc:50971
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:04:46 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Oct9.125305.4658@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <trussell.718583320@cwis>, trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell) writes:
>> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>> 
>
>	Regulation always has been the problem, and now we've got more.
>
>>     IMHO, this whole issue will turn out to be a red herring in the long run.
>
>	I predict by this time next year basic cable rates will be up at least
>10%.  And that's after this year's last minute 100% boosts.
>
>Brett                                                      
>_______________________________________________________________________________


	I guess I'm going to ruin my reputation as a wacko liberal,
	but I think that cable law is stupid!  I don't remember seeing
	hordes of people out demonstrating in the streets for this?
	Does anyone?  For heaven's sake, if you don't like the price
	for cable, take Nancy Reagan's advice:  JUST SAY NO!  There
	is no truth to the rumor that cable, like water, is a needed
	utility.  I love cable tv, and I don't want the gov't getting
	into it.  For heavens sake, when was the last time you saw
	freshly irrereverent programs like In Living Color on the
	non-cable networks?  

	It would sure be nice if congress could move as efficiently
	on IMPORTANT LEGISLATION as they've done on this one!

			Judy


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9293 alt.politics.bush:8323
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: We will not back down
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:54:32 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
-vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
->Make that two Simon. No, we are not alone, but these "free speech" liberals
->will try and beat you down and make you feel as if your ideas and beliefs are
->worthless. Don't back down Simon. _We_ will win in the end. After all,
->Conservatives are in the *Right*! :)
->Disclaimers. Disclaimers
->
->"The Wise man's heart inclines him towards the Right but,
-> a Fools heart to the Left."
-
-Bush, being left-handed, must be just as much a fool :-)
-
-Are British and Japanese drivers foolish?
-
-Dick Schofield is a wiser hitter than Ted Williams?

Hey, does that mean that ambidextrous people are just plain confused? :)

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: TIME sues Bush/Quayle campaign
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:44:57 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <Bw3BKC.FsD@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
> Well, it's official.
> 
> I just saw the article come across the clarinews feed here.  Time
> magazine is suing the Bush campaign for copyright infringement (I
> think) because of the overuse of Time's cover story on Clinton.
> 
> I would repost the article, but I'm not a Republican.  I try and
> respect the copyright rights of others.  ;)

	TIME will lose this one.  (In the ad I saw) TIME is clearly shown, thus
no conflict over where the picture came from.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: dtiberio@csws18.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Subject: Re: Best argument for single moderator and stupidity of voters
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 07:27:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.034023.20054@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes:

>especially if people had to compare him with Perot.   This ego trip campaign
>of Perot's is really a pain in the ass. He originally decided to get out
>because he couldn't win, he couldn't take the heat, and he was "disruptive
>to the process".  Those same facts exist today, except this time he's screwing

	EVERYONE here knew in June that Perot would back out...he never
declared his candidacy because he and all the rest of us believed that
the candidates spend too much times insulting each other rather than
doing anything constructive. I brought this up many times in the past
few months.

	Second, he has no ego trip. If I were the billionaire, I would
be doing the same thing TO IMPROVE THIS COUNTRY. You should be happy
that someone out there CARES ABOUT YOU.

	We had assholes here saying that he was going to remove our
freedom of speech with his line item veto. A LINE ITEM VETO HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Example:



	1993 US Gov Budget:

	increase SS benefits 10%
	increase medical benefits 20%
	increase Congress' salaries 50% <- A LINE ITEM VETO would allow
					the president to veto this line
					as opposed to the whole document
					and yes, it is a GOOD thing



	We have FOREIGN COMPANIES PAYING OFF CONGRESSMEN through LOBBYISTS.
There is NO REASON why we should have FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS buying out
OUR GOVERNMENT. PEROT WANTS TO STOP THIS.

	Vote PEROT. THE OTHERS ARE JUST SLIMY POLITICIANS.


-- 
      Amiga Graphics Association BBS (516) 473-6351  24 HRS, 14.4k baud
PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT
    "I don't have any experience in running up a 4 trillion dollar debt."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10987 alt.politics.elections:17307 talk.politics.misc:52454
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Date: 16 Oct 1992 16:37:17 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Vinay Julapalli Rao) writes:
|> Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
|> >
|> >Issues ! he doesn't have any yet, Im gonna fix-it !! Stay tuned !! 
|> >More Later !!
|> >He's just a cheap 1950's ad-man with a big wallet.
|> >He is hiding, just admit it, why doesn't he give his book out if it 
|> >is to help the American People ? It's not like he can't afford it.
|> >I have passed out over two-thousand copies of the Clinton Plan "FREE".
|> 
|> Is the Clinton Plan really "free"?  The money to print the plan has to
|> be coming from somewhere.

From campaign contributions.  Perot said he won't accept any, but if you
have to buy his book, then he is forcing you to make a campaign contribution
to find out what he believes in.  Not a bad idea.  You not only collect from
those that support you, as the other candidates do, but you also collect
from those that just want to learn more about your program.  Sort of
like a free test ride you have to pay for.

Perot is spending his money on this campaign like every penney is his
last.  Very impressive committment, considering his earlier promises.
(sarcasm off)
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:54:20 GMT

judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>	utility.  I love cable tv, and I don't want the gov't getting
>	into it.  For heavens sake, when was the last time you saw
>	freshly irrereverent programs like In Living Color on the
>	non-cable networks?  

In Living Color is on FOX, which is a non-cable network.

--Tim Smith
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: Re: TEXAS SENATE RACE AND HOMOSEXUALS
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 03:44:05 GMT

[... stuff about TX politics deleted...]

The gentleman you're talking about is State Rep. Glen Maxey.  Before he
was elected, he was the exec. director of Austin LesbiGay Political
Caucus and one of the founders of AIDS Services of Austin.  Oh, yes,
he was OUT.  He is running in one of the most liberal districts of possibly
the most liberal city (Austin) in Texas; to win his current seat he beat
a popular Chicano (the district is over 40% Chicano.)  His Republican (!)
opponent just a few months ago was courting the queer vote and said he
was pro-choice.  Oh, but how his tune has changed.  DICK Mallory, along
with Jack Chambers (Austin's version of Pat Robertson), were on Donahue
9/28 with Glen and a Lesbian couple that created an uproar by announcing
their marriage in the newspaper.  The couple was married in a Unitarian 
church here in Austin.

Hope this helps.
======================================================================
"For I can see that in the midst of death, Life persists; in the
midst of untruth, Truth persists; in the midst of darkness, Light
persists."      -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

"I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it."         -- ME!

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org, Michael Lax, 12514 Esplanade St., #B, 
Austin, TX  78727-4409, 512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax)

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9819 talk.politics.misc:51035
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush is raising taxes right now .  He broke his pledge already NOT!
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 12 Oct 92 00:50:27 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <11OCT199212131261@misvax.mis.arizona.edu>, dfriedman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (D R Friedman) writes:
> The miscellaneous tax bill on President Bush's desk contains some
> wonderful revenue enhancements [tax raises] that President Bush
> by his vetoing will cost me more money.
> 
> The losers when he vetoes the bill:
> 
> Investors in rental housing for low-income families
> Low income families who could use tax-free bonds to buy a home.
> Self-employed workers who will lose a 25 percent deduction for family
> health insurance costs.
> Samll manufactureers that use tax-exempt bonds to finance improvements.
> Victims of Hurrican Andrew.

	This reminds me of capitol hill: I didn't get as big an increase as I
wanted, thus, I suffered a cut in funding.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The lie Al "did not" Gore can not deny
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:05:21 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct15.120847.25072@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Oct14.232645.4817@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>> 	Al Gore was indeed pro-life, then he switched to pro-choice.  After the
>> debate (NBC?) waved a letter he wrote to someone who gave him a chunk of change
>> saying how proud he was to be pro life.  Gag.
>> 
>> 	So much for that "did not" denial :).
> 
> Do you have to support anti-abortion legislation to be "pro-life"?

	Russ, you know better!  This isn't Rush Limbaugh you're talking too.

> I'm pro-life and pro-choice...

	Just pro-choice.

> Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
> ------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
> EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

	Looks like he'll get another chance.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Sunday, 11 Oct 1992 22:25:10 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's e-mail address

In article <Bvz5nF.896@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu
(neil covey) says:
>
>Is there a non-automated e-mail address for the Clinton campaign?

75300.3115@compuserve.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10980 alt.politics.elections:17299 talk.politics.misc:52445
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ==> Dan Quayle: Attack Puppy Unleashed
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:24:25 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:

>In article <92288.005751U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>I have a copy of PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST and nowhere in it does it mention
>the $200,000 number. It has numerous vague comments about "forcing the very 
>wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes". Please document 'very wealthy'
>and 'fair share'. Lets be accurate in what we say....

Every time Bill Clinton makes this statement, he defines the very
wealthy as making families making over $200K per year.

>Please define the middle class- Democratic Governor Florio designed his
>massive tax increase to hit hardest at individuals making more than $35,000
>and families earning more than $70,000 - Some middle class indeed.
>BTW, Florio said he say now reason to raise taxes before the election and
>promptly raised them after he won- DRAMATICALLY.

I too would like a solid definition of middle class.  However, regarding
Florio's tax *is* target at the wealthier citizens of NJ. I don't know
what planet you're living on, but $35K per year for a single person 
with no dependents a very good salary and is a hell of a lot more than
many people earn.  My parent's *combined* incomes in 1989 were $33K,
and that was the most they ever made in a single year.  We were 
slightly below the average for the area (North Hunterdon County). 

I realize that the area that you live in determines how far your money
goes, but if you are making ends meet, living in a wealthy area, that
doesn't mean that you aren't making a decent living.  It means that you
are living beyond your means.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections