HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Date: 12 Jan 93 00:09:54 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan10.012511.951@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, sbrack@jupiter (Steve Brack) writes:
> gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
> : In article <1993Jan6.173125.875@uoft02.utoledo.edu> sbrack@jupiter
> : (Steve Brack) writes:
# : #	Hang on a second...  you just linked man/boy love to child 
# : #	molestation using what has been called the "welfare argument."
# : 
# : I'm not convinced that NAMBLA is really about "man/boy love"
# : (if this means adults with teenagers) and not child molestation.
# : Roy Radow certainly seems unwilling to state this.
# 
# 	Well, first of all, that's a very narrow definition of man/boy 
# 	love, and opinions still vary.  Personally, I believe it's a
# 	matter of individuals, not ages.

So, you don't think that there's ever a legitimate point in drawing
a line and saying, "Adults may not have sex with children under the
age of N?"

# 	When has Roy Radow been unwilling to say that NAMBLA is not about
# 	child molestation?  Just because people have an unrealistic set
# 	of criteria for child molestation (entirely age-based) doesn't
# 	mean that all forms of man/boy love or iintimacy are child 
# 	molestation.  Of course, there probably are child molesters in
# 	NAMBLA, but, then again, there are child molesters in every 
# 	organization you could think of. 

I couldn't make up stuff as outrageous as homosexuals keep posting
in defense of child molestation -- like Mr. Brack's postings.

# Steven S. Brack        |"But the greatest of|   sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast,alt.conspiracy,alt.censorship
From: harry@hershele.alf.dec.com (Harry Katz)
Subject:  Re: ARF's racist remark was:Re: Treason vs. Espionage
Organization: DEC - Customer Support Center, Alpharetta, GA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 14:43:01 GMT

In article <1g4a63INNbi6@agate.berkeley.edu>
dan@jonas.berkeley.edu (dan graves) writes:

	You agree that non-whites are incapable of sustaining our 
	civilization?  That's pretty raw even for you, Jack.

In article <BzA2vG.KyI@ddsw1.mcs.com>
arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) responds:

	I was agreeing with sentiment.  I did not choose the words.  

Mr. Schmidling illustrates the sublime confusion that allows him to
smugly dismiss the barbs of criticism that rain down on him from all
directions.  He does not seem to realize that he is being criticized for
his sentiments, not his choice of words.

	It is someone elses' quote.

	I would have used the culture instead of civilization.

Wouldn't it be nice if this self-appointed protector of American
culture could write a decent sentence in our language?  But let's grant
him his own choice of words.  Here is the definition of culture
according to Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language:

	the concepts, skills, arts, institutions, etc. of a given
	people in a given period; civilization.

In other words, there is not two cents' worth of difference between
these two words, but Mr. Schmidling acts as if it made all the
difference in the world!

He continues:

	Clearly...

Can anything really be "clear" to this befuddled brain? When he use
the word "clearly" he means that he cannot prove a word of it!


	...when a whole group of Aamericans desides to call 
	themselves African-Americans, they are implying a desire to 
	promote a different culture.

Or perhaps a desire to understand their own culture.  Anyone who
believes that American culture can be understood without studying its
African roots just as diligently as its European roots is sadly out of
touch.  Even if all Afro-Americans were to disappear from the face of
America at this very moment, America could still not rid itself of the
African contribution to American culture.

Harry Katz

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (jesse fuchs)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 10:59:33 GMT

	On the subject of "the morality of the majority is correct:"

	This unavoidably leads me to believe that Greek and Celtic homosexuals
were okay folks, because the majority of the people in their society agreed
to it.

	Even more frightening, this leads to the conclusion that Madonna is a
talented musician, and that German Jews were evil people. Hey! 50 million 
Germans can't be wrong, especially when they're able to walk in unison so 
well...

	Of course, if you were to go by a "world poll" to figure out what sort
of morality was correct, you'd probably come to the conclusion that the U.S.
is inherently evil. A lot of people live in Central America and the Middle
East who believe this, you know...

--

"Where imagination is sucked out of children by a cathode ray nipple
 T.V. is the only wet nurse that would create a cripple
 On television, the drug of a nation
 Breeding ignorance and feeding radiation."
				-Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy
From: dkrause@miami.acs.uci.edu (Doug Krause)
Subject: Re: How big _is_ Texas?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 6 Jan 93 12:29:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.110832.13836@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
# I have no idea if this story is true or not, but the fact is that Alaska
# IS over TWICE the size of Texas...

But it's all ice...   :-)

Doug Krause (A Transplanted Texan)
dkrause@hydra.acs.uci.edu
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 6 Jan 93 12:50:29 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1993Jan4.122624.24912@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:

> Except, of course, for "treason" against the liberal scum in Congress;
> if that be treason then let treason thrive.

According to Kevin Costner (on HBO last night), "Treason doth never
prosper ... for if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein)
Subject: Re: Execute Amy Fisher!!!
Organization: Panix, NYC
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:53:29 GMT

In <Jan.8.22.22.14.1993.8755@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>In article <1ikjolINN2pe@rana.usc.edu> amanda@rana.usc.edu (Amanda Bischoff) writes:

>> Actually, in some states (NY included) a criminal cannot make money
>> off a televised documentation of his/her story.

>The New York law was overturned last year by the Supreme Court (in a
>case brought by David Berkowitz -- the notorious "Son of Sam") as a
>violation of the first amendment.

True, but not complete.  the original law (called the "Son of Sam" law
after a somewhat newsworthy serial killer who made lots of money when his
book, etc., was published) was thrown out by thew courts for
Constitutional reasons.  But....

A new law was pased, probably Constitutional, which simply states that
victims (and the state? not sure) may sue the aggressor for all assets,
INCLUDING any obtained after the crime was committed.  Which gives 90% of
teh same results.

dannyb@panix.com

standard disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, nor an engineer, nor a doctor. 
Just a fan of trek.  oops, wrong disclaimer.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:52:05 GMT

In article <C0JJ56.69n@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.021811.5057@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>>>It boggles my mind that in this world filled with hatred, people would
>>>actually become indignant about the way two people express love for
>>>one another.
>>
>>	Love or perversion?  Who makes the call?
>
>Do you think you can make that call, with respect to your own self?


	Any decision that an individual makes that is out of line
	with the general populous is suspect unless there's a lot
	of evidence or logic on the side of that decision.


>How about at the age of, say, twenty-five?  Then you'd damn well
>better be ready to say than a gay man who's twenty-five could make
>that call.


	I don't think most people are competent to control their 
	credit card spending, let alone interpersonal acts like
	sexuality.  

>>	I certainly hope that you become as indignant as I do when
>>	I see a man who is obviously engaging in inappropriate "love"
>>	behavior with a child.
>
>Of course.  Do you become as indignant as I do when you see people
>making obviously fallacious connections between consensual adult
>homosexuality and pederasty?


	Sure.  Which is why I have never done so.  (There ARE connections
	of another sort, though.  The KKK, for instance, doesn't let
	NAMBLA march.  Gays do.  By not preventing NAMBLA, they are
	giving de-facto approval.)


-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:54:39 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1if0m5INN1dc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>
>In a previous article, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) says:
>
>>
>>It was announced today that Chelsea Clinton will be attending a private 
>>school.  Apparently the public school system is good enough for us plebes,
>>but not for Mr. Clinton's daughter....or has he changed his mind about
>>education vouchers?
>>
>
>And to add to the hypocrisy - I wonder if the wonderfull unbiased media, which
>blasted Quayle if he happened to play golf one time at some obscure club which
>had no minority members, will give us a breakdown of the student population
>at this elite private school.  And if it turns out to be 99% WASP, will they
>splash across the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post that 
>Bill has chosen a rascist institution to educate his daughter?  I WOULDN'T
>COUNT ON IT!
>
>It sickened me last night to see that Clinton doesn't even have to defend
>himself on this - CBS was doing all his spin control for him!
>
>Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu

My advice Richard:  Seek professional help for this problem.  Learn to
get past the anger stage.  You look like you've made it past denial.

-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Politics as usual
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:20:30 CST


In article <90238@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> The legislature in Massachusetts has reached a new low in politics.
> 
> Mass. has a two step ballot initiative process.  First get enough votes
> on a petition, then a special session of the legislature has to vote
> on the initiative, though you only need a 25% vote to get on the ballot.
> 
> Citizens in Mass. got the requisite number of signatures on a term
> limit initiative.  The special session was called.
> There were 24 initiatives to be voted on.  The legislature voted on
> 23 of them and adjurned.  The leadership of the body refused to
> allow a vote on the term limit initiative.  As a result of their actions
> the petition has expired.
> 
> Regardless of how you may feel about term limits, this has got to be
> one of the most disgusting usurptions of power that I have ever seen.

Why?  How was this an usurption of power?  It sounds like you would
like to usurpt the power of the elected legislative leadership.

-- 
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!)
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.flame.spelling
Subject: Re: How big _is_ Texas?
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:44:01 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1993Jan6.110832.13836@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:

> It seems that whan Alaska was being concidered for statehood, [...]

When Alaska was being _CONSIDERED_ for statehood, students knew how to
spell "consider".

> *...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   These are the REAL  *
> *  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu/Kelley L. Miller  / /__\      Gay 90's!!      *
> *-------------------------------------/____\-----------------------*
> ***************** Oxymoron: Freewill Christianity ******************

I am more inclined, rather, to consider the construction "friendly
athiest" as an oxymoron.  But more to the point: no one that I know of
is forced to walk through the door of the church.  You, as I, can
choose to enter in, or else decline to, of your own free will.  Or
perhaps Torquemada is still operating, undercover these days?

[Calvinists: cat flames > /dev/null]

BTW, you have trailing blanks after the last asterisks in the lines of
your .signature file.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Summary: Rockefeller  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:48:06 GMT

In article <robc.18.0@wicat>, robc@wicat (Rob Carlson)                                    writes...
>In article <1993Jan11.065529.27080@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
>>Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
>>Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:55:29 GMT
>>In article <robc.16.0@wicat> robc@wicat (Rob Carlson) writes:
>>>In article <C0nIDp.oy@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>>>	The only situation under which your scenario could be achieved is by 
>>>force. Like some government making a law that says you may only work for 
>>>that employer and cannot form any business of your own.
>>
>>	Or when other companies lock you out, for example.
> 
>	It will take force (i.e. government) for them to accomplish this.
> 
Or you could try Rockefeller's method. Which was to pay the railroad's
to charge his competition much higher rates and drive them out of the
business becuase they couldn't get their product to market.
>> 
>>/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
>>/lip@s1.gov
> 
>Rob Carlson 
>( still looking for a scenario under which there can be only one employer.)

-Garrett
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66126 misc.legal:22004
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 4 Jan 93 08:17:41 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Dec30.214319.11739@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>tmayer@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Tom Mayer) writes:

>>      I don't believe you understand the basis on which North's conviction
>>      was overturned.   The appeals court did not say than North did
>>      not commit the offences with which he was charged.  The court
>>      (mostly Reagan appointees) came up with the novel idea that 
>>      not only was North's testomony before Conress inadmissable at his

>	Not novel.  There is use immunity and transactional immunity.  
>Immunity would be pretty useless to the witness if anything he said under 
>it could be used to point investigators toward independent confirmation of 
>what was said, and therefore be used against the witness indirectly.

What was novel about it was the placement of the burden of proof on the
prosecution to show that the testimony wasn't tainted, rather than the 
defense having to show that the testimony was.

>>      trial but that the prosecutor had to show that the testimony 
>>      of all of the witnesses at the trial had not been affected by 
>>      watching the Iran-Contra hearings.  This made the prosecutors task
>>      virtually impossible.  By the way if North really believed he was
>>      innocent he could of testified before Congress without immunity, but
>>      then again he would have surely gone to jail in that case.

>	That pesky  5th "criminals ammendment" ammendment again,
>we outta just get rid of it.   %^)

>Gulity or not guilty.  Once you get a jury or court to say not 
>guilty you are not guilty, end of story.

True, but if North, et al, felt that their conduct was *not* criminal, 
then they wouldn't have destroyed documents, and they wouldn't have lied
to Congress about what they were doing.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66314 alt.politics.bush:15585 alt.politics.clinton:19663 tx.politics:8120
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: (new) US Space Program
Date: 5 Jan 93 16:11:18 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

Dr. Norman J. LaFave writes in part:

>I agree. NASA has become a slave to projects which interest
>corporations and the military, and has thus
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>strayed from their charter as an
>organization to perform long-term cutting-edge science and
>technology in the regime of Space and Aeronautics. Projects
>with commercial application should be
>run and funded by corporations, not the government.

>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>Senior Engineer
>Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company


Just curious, but where do you see your own company fitting into 
this picture?

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: What Did Karl Marx Propose? (was Re: Libertarianism...)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:24:47 GMT

In article <C0nwxF.2GI@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <markp.726644616@spider.wri.com>, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

: In <1993Jan09.153850.29360@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com
: (Richard Steven Walz) writes:

: > Leninism and Stalinism weren't communism. Go read Marx 

: I have, and I don't know of any incompatibilities with Leninism -- nor
: as many as you might think with Stalinism. (Nor did most Marxists, til
: Lenin/Stalinism failed.)

>Well aside from the abvious observation that Marx saw the dictatorship of the
>Proletariat as a transitional stage in building society and Lenin and Stalin saw
>it as the ultimate achievement the major difficulty with Marx is that he spen
>several thousand pages haranguing the Capitalist system and very little on
>expounding what he actualy wanted to replace it by.

	That's one criticism I've never seen too often, although it
does seem to be true of a lot of left-wingers (never mind that
government-bashing right-wingers often sound like that also).

	Apparently, this Communist Commonwealth he prophesied would be
a society where everybody would be totally unselfish and helpful to
others, a society where everybody would live happily ever after.

	On a possibly related subject, this was what Madonna
criticized Sinead O'Connor about: ripping up a picture of the Pope
without offering any positive alternative. She says that she wouldn't
accuse people of (say) being sexually repressed without offering
positive alternatives to that state. I certainly agree that she had a
good point.

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:52:27 GMT

In article <C0Ju9w.BpC@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.155205.2234@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>>	Any decision that an individual makes that is out of line
>>	with the general populous is suspect unless there's a lot
>>	of evidence or logic on the side of that decision.
>
>"Shepherds are for sheep."


	Exactly.  It's not hard at all to rip up Christianity using
	just the old testament.  If you want to do a good job, though,
	you can use Jewish oral law, which predates the NT.  For instance,
	it is quite easy to show that if Jesus *was* the Messiah, God had
	made some pretty big mistakes when discussing Him.


	On the other hand, I have been *asking*, repeatedly, for a good
	argument in favor of homosexuality.  They generally boil down to
	a few, pathetic types:

	1.  If it feels good, it must be OK.
		<utter crap>

	2.  Animals do it!
		<stupid>

	3.  It's been proven to be genetic!!!
		<lie>

	4.  The Bible Supports it!
		<based on obviously distorted quotes>

	You're a bright guy, Tim.  Can you come up with one that
	is CONSISTENT with the rest of your philosophy?  (i.e.,
	unless you believe in, say, letting a drunk stay a drunk
	or a teenager commit suicide because s/he's depressed, you
	can't give me the old, "leave people alone if they're not
	hurting anybody" line).

	I am looking for such an argument because I find it uncomfortable
	to hold a view (sexuality is irrelavent) that I cannot back up.
	My only pro-homosexual argument goes against the passage you
	quoted above, so it's not satisfactory.  (That is, "You say it's
	wrong, I say it's not--who decides?")


-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Subject: Re: national debt? why?
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA
Distribution: talk
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 06:46:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.1778.29517@channel1> "john lovett" <john.lovett@channel1.com> writes:
>This suggestion may be a little simplistic, but perhaps someone could
>flesh it out.
>
>We have a large national debt, but since we owe it to ourselves, why not
>declare that we forgive ourselves the debt, and forget about it?

Because the American dollar would be worthless and Canada would not be able
to handle the influx of refugees.
-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc