HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Kathi, please be careful
Distribution: usa
Date: 5 Apr 92 15:48:36 CDT

In article <1992Apr5.040848.29681@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.032145.12367@rigel.econ.uga.edu> Mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu writes:
>
>[a bunch of fairly impressive and earned flames, then]
>
>>>Gee, Kathi.  You didn't seem to object to Dennis's posting.  I guess
>>>you think posting private email of a friendly nature is okay TOO.
>>
>>Gee, Welch.  You didn't seem to object to Jack the Ripper.  I guess
>>you think the Holocaust was okay TOO.
>
>Watch it, Kathi. There are other analogies you could use, that'd work
>just as well without emotionally assaulting a whole bunch of people who
>didn't hurt you and aren't who you're trying for. Please, don't bring
>the Holocaust into debates where it does not belong.
>
Let me second this. Analogies to the H________ have no place here.
They bother Nora, and they irritate Susan's ex-boyfiend, Dean.

There are lots of good names to call each other without resorting
to the 'N' word.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:14:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr1.233006.16247@cfctech.cfc.com>
kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>mgaylord@rodan (Gaylord) errs in posting "Laws force beliefs"

>Indeed. But "laws force beliefs" can be interpreted in _either_ sense.
>Standing alone, it is ambiguous.

>I think confusion has been introduced by loss of the original context.
>Here it is again:

>"Idon't want to pay the small fortune in taxes that I do yearly, I don't want
> to drive @ 55 on roads designed for 70, I don't want many things that are 
> legislated, but thats my opinion and my tuff luck.  Laws force beliefs, its
> the same for any and all laws, and stopping abortion is a law I await."
>			From: mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord)
>			Message-ID: <1992Mar27.105424.10682@newstand.syr.edu>
>			Date: 27 Mar 92 15:54:24 GMT

>Gaylord seems to be describing the "active" sense of "forcing beliefs",
>i.e. forcing beliefs *ON* someone, rather than the "passive" sense of 
>"forcing beliefs" *IN* someone. In that former, more straightforward, obvious 
>sense, Gaylord is correct, and Keegan is not. That is my only point.

Well, he said it wrong, then.  "Laws force beliefs" means forcing
people to believe something.  If he meant forcing people to behave in
accordance with beliefs, he should have said "laws enforce beliefs".

>Perhaps Gaylord can clarify...

Perhaps.  Then let us see if someone can explain his clarification....

--
"Right and wrong exist in the nature of things.  Things are not right because
they are commanded, nor wrong because they are prohibited."  - R.G. Ingersoll

Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party's offical views on abortion
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:04:20 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr16.180614.4580@sdd.hp.com> 
            regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:
>>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> No amount of handwaving can change the fact that an abortion kills
>>> the fetus.

>> The point is not to obtain the property of the fetus.  

I never said it was. My analogy, which you deleted in your response, 
showed that killing a person, and refusing to support them, are two totally
different concepts. Pro-choicers would lead us to believe that an 
abortion only severes the link between the mother and the fetus,
which is false. An abortion kills the fetus. You have not addressed 
that point anywhere in your response.

[... handwaving deleted ...] 

> I applaud you.  Cogent, concise, clear and telling.
>
> Since I figured you wouldn't get much response (since arguing with what
> you said would be rather difficult) I decided to send you fan mail.
>
> And repeat your words once more for the net at large who missed them
> first time 'round.

He failed to address my primary point, Ms. Regard, that's why I didn't
respond at first. Are you up to it?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Liebe Company
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 06:17:46 GMT

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>> You should really obtain a copy of the Silent Scream.  Anyone describing
>> this battle for life as a "reflex" hasn't an objective bone left in their
>> body.

>If abortion is indeed murder, as you assert so often Kevin, then "The Silent
>Scream" is nothing more than snuff porn.  How could the makers of that movie
>stand idly by, their cameras grinding away, while a murder was taking place?
>How can you endorse viewing a film actually depicting a murder?

BAHAHAHAHA!  Open mouth, insert foot, swallow hard, expell, repeat.

"Silent Scream" was made by an abortionist (Physician) to prove that
the old "fetal tissue" bullshit was true.  Needless to say, he and the
patient were shocked and sorry.  The woman will always regret murdering
her child and she will never be able to erase the image of watching her
child die before her eyes.  The physician stopped aborting shortly
thereafter.

>Of course, the other option is that you and the rest of the pro-lifers don't
>take your 'abortion is murder' argument all that seriously, and that "The
>Silent Scream" is simply a propaganda flick with 'B-movie' production values.

This is so stupid, it collapses on it's own merit.

>A little reminder:  I asked you about this in that other abortion newsgroup
>about a month ago.  You never replied.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Thursday, 9 Apr 1992 11:20:29 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Reproductive Freedom for All?
 <92077.140757ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> <1992Apr5.010333.23942@rotag.mi.org>

In article <1992Apr5.010333.23942@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>
>In article <92077.140757ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham
>writes:

>>>Then it was poorly made. Pro-lifers rarely rest their position
>>>on "[in]equity",
>>>and, when they do, it's usually in terms of the "inequity" of
>>>a woman being
>
>>Where did Ms. Cook ever say she was arguing a Prolife position
>>on "[in]equity".

>When she flatly admitted that the primary reason for imposing
>all of this
>barbarity on men was "because it is FAIR" [sic].

But that has nothing to do with the prolife position as I pointed
out and you deleted.

>Can I trust that you grasp the semantic link between "fairness"
>and
>"equity", Linda, or do I need to go through even further
>gyrations to
>explain this to you as well? I know you have trouble with
>reading
>comprehension sometimes...

Can I trust that you grasp the semantic difference between "prolife"
and "prochoice", Kevin, or do I need to go through even further
gyrations to explain this to you as well? I know you have trouble
with reading comprehension all the time.




Linda
--
T.S.A.K.C.
"Anything that is too stupid to be spoken is sun" Voltaire
Xref: sparky alt.sex:14774 alt.politics.homosexuality:2227 talk.politics.cis:5
From: g8801935@cs.uow.edu.au (The Jester)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.politics.cis
Subject: Re: Hey - Stein is not pleased
Date: 16 Apr 92 03:09:54 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia

sik@cs.uow.edu.au (The 24hr man) writes:

>I'm starting to lose track of the discussion, simular discussions are being
>carried out under too many different subject headers, and in too many different
>groups...  Why not stick to Human Sexuality???  And lets vote on the group...
>Would help us keep the stats on our side too !-/  One drawback though, I have
>this feeling a lot of people are killing the 'Human sexuality' thread :-(
>Well, maybe we should vote on a new thread too, and then try to stick to this
>new, wonderful thread.

>Thank you for listening (if you do)...
Well I think maybe talk.politics.cis is a good group to use, it is empty
and has not had any articles posted to it yet. As for the thread, Human
sexuality is as good as any, though maybe we should change it to something
else.
-- 
\ /  /    / /  /\   | Thank god for the fools, for without them none of
 \\/ \/\ /\ \/ \/_  | us could succeed.
 / \/  /   \ \/ \   |                  --I forgot who, I'll find it later.
g8801935@cs.uow.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.politics.cis
From: sik@cs.uow.edu.au (Kravmann)
Subject: Re: Human Sexuality -- Pizza
Sik-Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about!
Organization: SikSW, Dept-Comp-Sci, Uni-Of-W'gong, NSW 2500, AUSTRALIA
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 06:24:22 +0800

Ops, forgot to follow Jester's newsgroup suggestion so here it goes again:

In alt.sex,
    article <P.wyvern.22@130.130.35.37>,
        sik@cs.uow.edu.au (Kravmann) wrote:
>
>In alt.sex,
>    article <1992Apr15.095534.2470@mac.cc.macalstr.edu>,
>        amitchell@mac.cc.macalstr.edu wrote:
>>
>>Thanks again to folks who forwarded things to me.  A couple people forwarded me
>>info on their pizza preferences, so I thought I would make them avaliable to
>>you folks as well.  Here they are:
>
>Thank you for this...
>
>>I had responses from two men.  One did not indicate his sexual preference, or
>>whether he liked green peppers, but did say he liked his pizza anchovy-free
>>with thin crust.  The other likes women and doesn't like green peppers.
>
>We might have something here, I like women and no green peppers.
>
>(Jester, are you keeping the statistics?-)
>
>>I also like my pizza anchovy-free, but don't really care whether the pizza is
>>thin crust or deep dish.  I still like men, too, although I haven't tasted
>>them on pizza. 8)
>
>I like anchovy, but not on the pizza (haven't tried them on women yet :-)
>
>I like thick crust - hardly ever eat this crust pizza.
>
>Finally, we seem to get somewhere with this research !-)
>
>>Allison
>>amitchell@macalstr.edu
>>amitchel@math.macalstr.edu
>>
>>Macalester College does not necessarily agree with my opinions.
>>
>>"Taste me, taste me, I'm organic!" -The Bobs
>
> Stein I. Krav - sik@cs.uow.edu.au
>'No matter where you go, there you are' - Buckaroo Banzai
>'When thou walkest through the fire, thou shall not be burned.' -Isaiah 43:2

 Stein I. Krav - sik@cs.uow.edu.au
'Real programmers haven't even TRIED decaffeinated coffee!' - George Brims
'When thou walkest through the fire, thou shall not be burned.' -Isaiah 43:2
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Tax zap cap
Date: 8 Apr 92 09:59:45 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
>Lets ask, what is the point of society?  Glancing at our constitution, each
>person has the right to self-determinancy.  That is, each person has the
>freedom to look for their own value and happiness!

>If one person has very little or nothing, they are being denied this right.

How so?  You're still free to look for value and happiness.  I did.


>Seeking value and happiness requires some sort of flexibility and options.
>The absence of options is a destruction of rights.

My flexibility and options were very hard work in school.  It worked.
WHO is denying you these options?  Is it someone with a million
dollars or is it yourself?  And exactly which "options" do you have a
right to?  The option to be a pro-football player?


>One individual recieving a huge amount, with others having no freedom at all
>is detrimental to society.

Once again, who is limiting their freedom, and why is his having a
huge amount detrimental?  Who makes all this stuff for him?  Who's
getting loans off his capital?  Who's he hiring to keep all his stuff
up?  Who's working at the companies he runs to make sure he can afford
to keep his stuff?

He also serves as a possibility to everyone else.  They can do it too.


>>But the purpose of R&D is to increase your future profits.  What good is
>>this if you can never access these profits?

>As you yourself pointed out, why would anyone work hard if they could not
>get more money?  Well, there is the expectation of future profit which
>they still can get.  

But they've already got as much money as you've allowed them.  What
future profit are you talking about, when anything above that cap goes
back to the government, and why should they invest any more than that
necessary just to maintain it all?
-- 
Go climb a gravity well.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 16:41:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.201404.24034@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> jfh@greenber.austin.ibm.com (John F Haugh II) writes:
>I'll explain AIDS to you.  AIDS is not easily spread.  If you
>have unprotected sex with a person who is HIV+, you have a 1
>in 500 shot of getting AIDS.  So, you'd either have to have
>sex with 500 HIV+ people, or the same one 500 times.  Now, we'll
>assume for a moment that you wouldn't knowingly have unprotected
>sex with an HIV+ person, so you are back to having to have
>enough different partners to insure that the disease spreads.
>After all, you can't get it if you aren't exposed to it.  With
>about .5% of the total population HIV+, and 90% of that gay men,
>(and gays accounting for some magical 10% of the general public)
>we have about 1,000,000 HIV+ gay men out of a hypothetical 13M
>total.

(1) The odds of transmitting HIV through anal sex is much higher than
    one in five hundred.
(2) There are far fewer than 1,000,000 HIV+ gay men.
(3) There are far fewer than 13M total gay men.
(4) We're talking eleven years of exposure.
(5) Finally, HIV is not evenly distributed throughout the gay population.
    There are very definite clusters in SF, LA, and NY (and Houston, to
    a lesser extent.)  

>Go back to grade school and learn how math works.

Indeed, you should.
-- 
Ted Frank          + "If you close your eyes, they all taste the same."
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  			-- General Mills representative
U o' C Law Skool   +  			   responding to complaint about new
Chi, IL 60637      +  			   radiocative-green Froot Loops (tm)
From: junikka@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Jari Junikka)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 15 Apr 92 05:41:57 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin Dept. of Mathematics

djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:

>If you consider ten new partners a nite and four or five new
>'relationships' a year stable.  :-!

Oh my god, I must be straight after all, since I get nowhere closer
to those figures. But go and tell to the men who hang around 
the singles bars that they must be queer, since they have more than
the allowed limit of partners.

By the way, 10 partners a night is pretty much impossible for
any self-respecting fag... I mean, we tend to spend more than
15 minutes in bed, so there just isn't enough hours in a day...

jari
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17729 misc.legal:9138
From: rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Noriega
Keywords: extraterritoriality, sham, trial
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:26:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.kubnfbINNk6j
Distribution: world
Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: spcsun25.bbn.com

Yesterday, Manuel Noriega was convicted of violating a whole bunch
of U.S. laws, even though the acts in question occured entirely
within Panama.  I'm not sure Noriega had ever even set foot in the U.S.
before we invaded his country and kidnapped him.

Now if the U.S. can do this, then the following must be perfectly fine too:

  - Iran sends agents to the US and/or UK to kidnap Salman Rushdie
    and take him to face a "trial" before a group of ayatollahs, who
    quickly sentence him to death and execute him.

  - The King of Saudi Arabia, angry that someone has smuggled U.S. beer
    into the country, sends a divison to invade and loot St. Louis, Missouri
    while searching for the president of Anheuser-Busch Corporation.  
    When this person is found, he is brought back to Saudi Arabia 
    and charged with violating Islamic prohibitions on alcohol, 
    and is put to death.

Someone tell me the difference.

-- 
Ron Newman		rnewman@bbn.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 02:03:38 GMT

In article <LEE.92Apr10151831@meercat.wang.com> lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes:
>
>Unfortunately they're more than off-the-cuff comments.  Actions speak
>louder than words, and Perot's sallies into his employees' personal
>lives are sufficient for me to oppose him.  The man has one critical
>and damning failing---on "morality" he thinks he knows it all.  I'd
>rather have Bush---at least he is controlled by political expediency.
>The ol' china shop may be in need of rearranging, but I don't want to
>let a bull in.
>
>Let's take one other example---the dress code that EDS was famous for.
>This is indeed important in projecting a certain image to EDS's big
>corporate customers, and may have been an essential part of Perot's
>accumulation of billions of dollars; but what does it say about the
>man:  once again that he was more than willing to kowtow to bigwig
>prejudice, and to convention, and to think nothing of unnecessarily
>taking personal choices away as a condition of employment, all to make
>a buck.
>
	There're better examples than this. Many jobs have dress codes,
including garbage collectors, fast food employees, Military personnel, 
TV news anchors, and sales representatives.  I think people on the net 
bring it up because many engineers and scientists work in places that 
don't have dress codes.
From: dletcher@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Drew Letcher)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Iowa Political Stock Market
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:47:35 GMT
Organization: U of Iowa, Iowa City, IA


ANNOUNCING:       THE IOWA POLITICAL STOCK MARKET  (IPSM)

Here's a chance to put your money where your mouth is!

The IPSM is a real (non-profit) securities market exchange.  Where people
can invest from $5-$500 and trade in political candidates.  The premise
we are trying to prove is that a stock market where people have money
on the line will be more accurate in predicting election outcomes than
the opinion polls you see in the news media.

There are currently two different markets one for the Democratic Primary
and one for the November Presidential Election.  The current prices in US$
as of Wednesday April 8, 1992 are:

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY                   PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
                                     Bush                0.501
Clinton         0.904                Clinton             0.405
Brown           0.008                Brown               0.008
Tsongas         0.025                Tsongas             0.033
Rest of Field   0.050                Rest of Democrats   0.037

(The prices can be interpreted as percentages by multiplying by 100.)

TELNET ACCESS TO THE IPSM:

To see the current prices and to check out the IPSM trading program you can
telnet to the following Internet address:

     IPSM.BIZ.UIOWA.EDU   128.255.44.2

After you connect just follow the prompts.  You'll need a full screen
terminal such as a VT100.  The IPSM supports over 30 different terminal
types.  For more information write or call to the following address.

IPSM
556 Phillips Hall
University of Iowa          phone: (319) 335-0881
Iowa City, IA  52242        email: ipsm@scout-po.biz.uiowa.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: The Character Issue in Bipartisan Perspective
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 10:14:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.224947.27059@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <RV.92Apr7195936@cslab8a.cs.brown.edu> rv@cs.brown.edu (Rodrigo Vanegas) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr4.223815.3029@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>>>>  The Character Issue in Bipartisan Perspective

>>>>  Bill Clinton:
>>>>    If he lied to his wife, will he lie to the country?

>>> The answer to this one is yes...Clinton lied to the voters in Florida
>>> about Paul Tsongas, and he is lying this weekend to the voters in New
>>> York about Jerry Brown.

>>Why?  What did he say?

>Clinton ran radio ads, I think, implying Brown was against a woman's
>right to choose....in Florida, he tried to scare seniors and Jewish
>Americans by lying about Tsongas, in NY, he tried to scare women
>by lying about Brown.

Brown *IS* against a woman's right to choose.  Or at least doesn't
support it very strongly.  Even the Village Voice, which endorsed Brown,
called him the weakest of the Democrats on abortion rights.

He once said "killing the unborn is crazy," after one of his
pilgrrimages to Mother Theresa, and he wrote a letter to Gov Bob
Martinez of Florida asking to him to release an Operation Rescue person
from jail -- she was sent there for breaking and entering and vandalism,
and threatened to do it again if released.

>Clinton is a liar!                          

>Gerald


-- 
David M. Nieporent              |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu  |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
"Baseball stathead, and card-carrying member of the ACLU.  And proud of it."
From: cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: let's start a new party!
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:34:35 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

Let's start our own mock party - the Rationalist party  (I hope there
isn't one already)


All opinions are to be presented with logical reasons for their position.

Suggestions?