HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:28:28 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct13.000811.5263@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:

>
>I already mentioned that this activity takes up less than 10 hours of
>work a week. If I were so inclined, I might spend some of the rest
>running or working for a company that was involved in tool production
>in some way.  I'm not, and so I'm happy that there appear people who
>are. In turn, I spend much of the rest of my time doing stuff with
>computers that various companies who produce them commercially are,
>might be, or are not interested in using.

  Well, I also grow nontrivial amounts of my own food.  This weekend
  I canned 15 jars of tomatoes and I also grow potatoes, onions, beans,
  etc.  Every year I add a few square feet to my garden.   I'm trying
  to talk my wife into letting me raise chickens (this would also re-
  quire my neighbors to agree, due to local ordinances).

  But I agree with others that this is a luxury for most people.
  I have more free time than most because I have no kids.  And I'm
  also lucky that I have some land.  

  Moreover, the benefits of doing this are mainly psychological --
  a feeling *potential* self-sufficiency, and feeling of being 
  connected to the whole process of gaining my food.   The money
  saved is trivial given that food is a miniscule part of my budget.
  If I factored in my time at my current salary I suspect I'm in
  the red on this.  I have no illusions that this is a self-indulgence
  for me, really no different than a man who has a yacht or season
  tickets to a spectator sport or who spends his weekends running 10K
  races.

  (Paul says he spends 10 hours a week.  Say there are 5 months in
   the growing season -- that's 21.5 weeks, or 215 hours.  At $20
   /hour (the low end of what a software engineer can make) that 
   still works out to $4300.   This would be WAY more than I spend
   on food for a whole year.  And this assumes there are no other
   costs such as seeds, fertilizers, etc.  I do "organic" gardening
   but that doesn't mean it's cost-free -- seeds, blood-meal (N),
   tools, fencing, canning lids, etc)


---peter






Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:57:27 GMT

Mike Polen (mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com) wrote:
: Tim Miller) writes:
: |> 
: |> 	Heh heh heh.  Man goes to Moscow, can't remember a thing about
: |> it.  Anyone ever see "The Manchurian Candidate?"
: |> 
:  	Heh heh heh.  Man attends meeting in the white house on support 
: 	to Iraq, can't remember a thing about it.  Anyone ever see 
: 	"The Manchurian Candidate?"

  	Heh heh heh.  Man is President for eight years, can't remember a
	thing about it.  Anyone ever see "The Manchurian Candidate?"

Dammit I haven't seen "The Manchurian Candidate!"  I don't get it...

/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                                Clinton/Gore '92                             |
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50214 alt.politics.perot:1907 alt.politics.elections:15572
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: If you don't want Perot:  Bend over to the Republocrats.
Date: 8 Oct 92 07:11:03 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Oct5.142128.26937@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>In article <VNCRBD9C@cc.swarthmore.edu>, mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:
>|> Add to this list the fact that Perot is
>|> 
>|> - a person with a history of crushing anyone who dares to oppose him. 
>|> There's a reason why the police force is afraid to give his daughter a
>|> speeding ticket!
>|> 
>
>	What does this have to do with anything?  LBJ was this type
>	also.

That's certainly true, and we *really* need another LBJ, Vietnam is
getting a little uppity again.

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Cable Regulation [Was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!]
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:16:21 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <70165@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK) writes:
>In article <9210060146.AA58813@sub.its.rpi.edu> buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
>>
>>I just saw on CNN that Bush's 36th veto was just over-ridden. So the Cable
>>Regulation Bill becomes law despite Bush. Of course it is unclear whether
>>cable rates will go up or down, but Bush losing a veto fight seems like a
>>progressive result.
>
>PROGRESSIVE RESULT?  This has got to be one of the most disgusting examples
>of government interference.  The way congress pandered to the public (and
>especially the networks), embarrassed the President, and infringed on the
>rights of the cable companies in one fell swoop is a tribute to the type
>of scum that inhabit our legislative branch.

>         People think they're bloody ENTITLED to low-cost cablevision, as
>if it were a necessity of life!  The locals interviewed generally responded
>something like this [in your best red-neck, "Bubba" accent]:  "It just
>ain't far that I gotta pay 40 bucks a month for my M-T-V!"  Combined with the
>fact that so many people this election year think Clinton is going to 
>significantly improve their lives, this bill well illustrates the selfish
>idiocy rife within the American public. 


   I agree completely.  I think this illustrates the utter depths of
   depravity that Congress has reached.  While the rest of the world
   is moving toward freer markets, the US is re-regulating industries;
   truly the mind boggles.

   BTW, the Wall Street Journal had an article saying that the bill only
   specifies that "basic services" must be offered at a regulated rate --
   it doesn't specifiy what has to be in those basic services.  In other
   words all this will do is cause cable companies to shift currently
   basic services into premium ones, costing cable subscribers more.

   If you don't think you get good cost/benefit from cable then don't
   subscribe!   TV is not a necessity of life.   Alternatively you
   can politically force your city fathers (and mothers) to allow
   cable competition -- communities with cable competition have 36%
   lower rates according to the same article.


---peter

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50622 alt.rush-limbaugh:6989 alt.politics.bush:8458 alt.politics.clinton:9445 alt.politics.elections:15905 talk.abortion:41697 alt.sex:32475
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Summary: my turn
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:31:05 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct9.194614.7472@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> burkhardt@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

#Whether the fetus is viable or non-viable is not the question.  The question,
#bottom line, comes down to a fetus has a right to life since it's stated
#in the Bill of Rights that this right to life exists.  The corrolary to 
#that is whether the fetus should be allowed to develope with the basis being
#this right to life or do we ignore the inenvitable result - that of human
#being

Please tell me just where in the B of R a right to life is granted.

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50912 alt.politics.perot:1958 alt.politics.elections:16110 alt.politics.clinton:9719
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:48:17 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1cJ5025B25AM01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> joplin@mcode.amdahl.com (Jerry Joplin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.171727.19865@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
>> This is why Clinton has the right idea.  He suggests splitting the
>> government budget into two accounts -- a "present" account that pays
>> for things like government employee salaries, farm subsidies <bleah>,
>> and the like; and a "future" account that pays for infrastructure,
>> educational investments, and other tangible assets.  The present
>> accounts would have to be balanced, while it would be less of a priority
>> to do so for the investment accounts.
>> 
>Unfortunately Clinton makes no effort to balance the "present accounts"
>either.  He has no proposal to limit the growth of Entitlements.

Not true.  He wishes to replace welfare with workfare, no?
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 7 Oct 1992 20:55:33 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Michael A. Thomas) writes:
|> Mike Best) writes:
|> > You're gonna get hell for that one, I loved it!  This really is a fine
|> > point and it is exactly about what truly is the definition of marriage.
|> > I wish that my old (male) roommate and I had the opportunity to be
|> > married so that we could get the *entitlements* (key word) associated
|> > with marriage such as preferential tax codes.  Then, when one of us
|> > wanted to _really_ get married then we could divorce and move on with
|> > our lives outside this nifty setup.  If homosexuals get this right then
|> > don't be surprised to see what I described happen.
|> 
|>   When you can show me that any significant number of heterosexuals
|> are doing the equivalent, I might be impressed. Otherwise I'm not.
|> In any case, the only thing that would point out is the absurdity 
|> of entitlement programs...

Acutally, Mike Best is wrong on this one.  The tax and social security
codes only favor married couples when only one works, and when that 
one makes enough so the survivor does not require social security.
It is more likely, particularly among older couples and welfare
couples, to not get married for tax and income purposes.

On the other hand, Michael Thomas is even more wrong on thinking
that it is any of his business what homosexuals do or what the
sex of the person is that they marry.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
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: rights and responsibilities
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 07:43:15 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct9.215657.20426@leland.Stanford.EDU> kpscarr@leland.Stanford.EDU (Karen Pelton Scarr) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.194614.7472@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> burkhardt@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>>>There is no way LOGICALLY to grant personhood status to a non-viable fetus.
>>>Any way you do it, it steps on some other person's rights.

Sure there is.  (Well, we have to step on some rights to do it I'll admit)
Actually, it's fairly easy.
>
Nonviable Big Al.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:55:50 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 71249@hydra.gatech.EDU, gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU (DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE) writes:
>Protesting against your country, outside your country is a horrible thing
>to do.  When one protests, it is to enact change in your gov't, community,
>or whatever.  When you protest in an area where only foreigners can see,
>how can that be thought of as an attempt to change something...

This is patently absurd.  The demonstration was before the American Embassy.
It was legitimate for American citizens to petition the government for redress
of grievances, both at home and abroad.  A protest at an American Embassy was
far more likely to be heard by the US government than one on a street corner
in Peoria.

Getting back to media bias, the Seattle Times today published a full page
spread entitled "Are these men to be trusted?"  It contained two articles, 
one on Clinton and one on Bush.  The Clinton article goes on and on about
little inconsistencies in the record of what Clinton did two decades ago,
or whether he fully supported the Gulf War.  It is a measure of the man's
true integrity that this is the worst dirt they can dig up on him.  They
have to go back 23 years to find an issue for a full page article.  An issue
that involves absolutely no legal or political wrongdoing.

The Bush article was full of serious questions about the legality and 
propriety of Bush's actions in political office.  (Yet the paper made it
*seem* like there was some kind of parity there.)  Not only did they bring
up the possible abuse of government power (tax-funded resources) to investigate
Clinton's background for partisan political advantage, but they pointed out
Bush's seeming new admission that he was "in the loop" on the arms-for-hostage
deal.  (Now White House Council C. Boyden Gray says he new about the transfer
of arms, but not that it was for hostages.  Just a routine transfer to the
Iranians, eh? ;-)  But the article reserves the worst for what is going on
right now:  the CIA and the Justice Department coordinating efforts to suppress
information on illegal loans to Iraq and mislead a U.S. District Judge.  Then
there are the unsubstantiated charges that the Bush administration is pursuing
an investigation of FBI Director Sessions to get him to tone down his investiga-
tion of the Iraq matter.  It's called "obstruction of justice", and many of us
remember what that is from the Watergate era.  The U.S. Department of INjustice
is back.  

Yet the media continues to treat these issues on equal terms: whether Bill Clinton
demonstrated against the war 23 years ago and whether the Bush administration is
willfully engaging in obstruction of justice.  Talk about media bias.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50953 ca.politics:8626 ba.politics:6043
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: the Claytoon's Selectivity (was Re: Myths about Promiscuity)
Date: 12 Oct 92 01:38:32 GMT
Organization: LLNL


	One thing curious about the Claytoon's rants is that he
confines himself to denouncing male -- and not female --
homosexuality. Lesbianism does not seem to exist in his book. And all
he cares for is a supposed link between male homosexuality and
pedophilia, totally ignoring heterosexual pedophilia.

	The fact of the matter is that the _large_ majority of
fully-grown gay men prefer other fully-grown men, not little kids. I
invite the Claytoon to visit any favorite hangout for gay men so he
can see for himself what a gay man's idea of a sex symbol is. Or read
magazines like _Blueboy_, _Playguy_, _Honcho_, _Stallion_, _Torso_,
_Inches_, or other such magazines, and get an eyeful of these paragons
of virility.

	I notice that the _only_ thing that the Claytoon cared to
discuss about this year's SF Gay Pride parade was how NAMBLA was
received. He seemed to ignore the rest of it. I invite him to next
year's parade, so he can see for himself. It will probably be held on
the last Sunday in June, and the route will be along Market Street in
SF from the Embarcadero to the Civic Center.

	How to get there from Petaluma: If you relish the thought of
driving from Petaluma to SF and trying to find parking in SF, I won't
try to stop you. But that is unnecessary, since you can always catch a
Golden Gate Transit bus on a Hwy. 101 stop and go all the way to SF on
it. It will stop near the parade route. Or else drive or take a bus to
the Larkspur ferry terminal, and take a ferry from there to the
Embarcadero in SF. Alternately, you may drive all the way to the
Richmond or El Cerrito del Norte BART station and park your car there
(parking's free, there isn't much competition on weekends, and it's
easier driving there than SF). You get on BART to SF, where you have
the choice of four BART stations along the parade route to get off at.
From: usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Election predictions
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:08:58 GMT
Reply-To: Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
Organization: Dave_Wetzel

In article <9655@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> 
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> If you really want to
> keep Baker as secretary of state, the best way to do that would be
> to re-elect Bush.
> 

To hell with that!  If you really want Baker-esque Foreign policy why not 
write-in Baker???  The concept of voting for Bush so that he can abdicate 
to Baker seems a bit bizzare.  But then again, I wouldn't vote for Bush 
under any condition...

--------------
Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: buckmr@vccsouth15.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Time Magazine Cover Use in Campaign Ad
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:51:46 GMT

METZE@uimrlm.mrl.uiuc.edu (Virginia Metze) writes:

<rant about the bias of TIME Magazine deleted>
Hey, Ginny!

SUBSCRIBE TO THE _VILLAGE VOICE_!

>===============================================================================
>Ginny                                  Impeach Thomas!
>metze@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu              Impeach the Rehnquist 5, 6 or 7!
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah!
>"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress
>today?  It wouldn't even get out of Committee."  F. Lee Bailey, 1967. 
>===============================================================================
:-)

Love your .sig, dearie!
-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735 ``D.C., April 25 1993''
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
Repeat after me: "Mel Gibson is a Catholic Fundie from Hell!"
Repeat after me: "Mel Gibson is a Catholic Fundie from Hell!"
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Women as inventors
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:51:31 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct15.082523.28299@leland.Stanford.EDUF: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

F:And yet, after I posted an article suggesting that women had something
F:to do with inventing the cotton gin, the reaper, vacuum canning,
F:Ronzone denied that and stated they were all invented by men.  In this
F:day and time, to say that the past accomplishments of women are
F:denigrated is absurd?

Posting is not the same as proving.  Please provide some evidence for your
claims.  I have heard some *speculation* about the cotton gin.  But not
any of the others.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50679 alt.activism:17323 ca.politics:8586
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Chicken George the Coward President
Keywords: cia, fbi, kill file, fda, dea, bush, nwo, kissinger
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:19:00 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <8453.21284@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM> lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len B.) writes:
>In article <hines.718493648@cgl.ucsf.edu> hines@socrates.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines) writes:
>>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>>>>I wonder if the average Clinton fan is so ignorant that he doesn't
>>>>>know the difference between the CIA and the Secret Service or if Scott
>>>>>here is special.

>>>>Well shucks,  I suppose I'm an average Clinton fan and well, shoot,
>>>>I reckon I wouldn't know the difference between the CIA and Secret
>>>>Service either.

>>>Well, in that case it confirms my opinion that Clinton is pandering to
>>>the ignorant.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of ignorant people out
>>>there so the strategy may work.

>>>The CIA is responsible for gathering intelligence and covert
>>>operations in foreign countries.  Their domestic activities are
>>>limited to non-operational stuff like analysis, planning, etc.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>You really are to funny for words! Do you know "Wackenhut"? Do
>you know how to go aboaut getting your own file from the FBI?
>Do you know that teh CIA has performed drug-related experiments
>on people in this country without their consent or fore
>knowledge?

>Really...this is a scream!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :^)

>>ha
>>ha ha ha

Actually, I think the real scream is the Len and Wade show.

In particular, Len and Wade should remember that the people I was
responding to was not talking about covert activities in 
violation of the law.  They were talking about those nice boys in dark
suits with hearing aids who are present at presidential campaign
rallies.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52258 alt.rush-limbaugh:7587 alt.politics.bush:9430 alt.politics.clinton:10840 alt.politics.elections:17215 talk.abortion:42920 alt.sex:33134