HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Date: 23 Jul 92 06:46:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

In article <1992Jul23.031313.26992@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>ever since they have been measured, and 4) the average global temperature
>has been rising since it has been observed, over 100 years.
>

BZZZZZZZT!  Sorry, this last one is really disputed.  There is *NO* measure
of global average temperature that shows a rise in temperature to any
statistically significant level.  The temperature records for most cities
are contaminated by urban  heat island effects (most cities have grown
considerably over the last 100+ years).  The measurement "network" is not
even close to being uniform in spatial or time sampling, and "true"
global measures (such as satellite measured IR flux) are complicated
by the lack of stable, fully calibrated sensors.

It has been estimated that it would take another 100+ years to get a 
statistically valid measure of global warming using atmospheric temperature
measurements.  It might take 10-25 years to do the same with mean ocean
temperature measurements using acoustic tomography.  


-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul23.162348.29281@afit.af.mil>
	<1992Jul23.180710.2368@umbc3.umbc.edu> <1736@celia.UUCP>
Distribution: usa
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:32:40

I fear that to make $100 million from a movie about JFK, there has
to be a conspiracy of some kind.  Suppose you invented a left wing
conspiracy, with pseudo-revelations about how Khrushchev plotted
JFK's murder.  Well maybe we could make it the less popular
Brezhnev even though he didn't overthrow Khrushchev till a year
later.  Yes, that makes an even bigger plot.  All you have to
do is overcome your conscience about truth and false accusation.
Of course, if you are paranoid enough you won't have that problem;
as soon as you make up the nonsense, you'll come to believe it.

It helps if you go around in a crowd that believes in a particular
set of villains.  Stone may not go around with anyone who doesn't
believe left wing conspiracy theories.

For our right wing fantasy, we need to work in the prisoners in
Vietnam.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Agran: Tuesday Night Update
Date: 18 Jul 92 18:45:19 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

75300.3112@CompuServe.COM (Agran for President) writes:
>     The drive to get enough signatures to place Larry Agran's name in
> nomination fell short.  Only 200 signatures were collected; 300 were
> the minimum required.
> 
>     There were some indications of a conspiracy to keep people from
> signing.  We heard that Brown delegates were told not to sign, which
> is interesting considering that a high, high person on the Brown staff
> contacted us a couple weeks ago offering to collect signatures.  Did
> Jerry get wind of it and put a stop to it?
        I really wish the Left would STOP bandying about this 'conspiracy' 
business. It doesn't do much for our credibility, and that sort of 
melodramatic thinking can lead one into some very ugly strains of thought-- 
say, the conspiracy theories of right-wing origins, promoted by such people 
as Craig Hulet and Fletcher Prouty.

        I'll see about sending Chip Berlet's "Right Woos Left" for 
recirculating.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"Best Reason Not to Vote for Perot-- If he wins, it might encourage Bill 
Gates to run." 
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2440 alt.rush-limbaugh:2966 talk.politics.misc:35376
From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 03:34:08 GMT

Sorry if this was the genesis of this thread, but there's an article
in the July 20th _Forbes_ magazine concerning media bias.  The article
is by Dr. Thomas Sowell.  Given where its published, you might guess
its position (remember: Cappy Weinberger is the publisher).  Anyhow,
I got a chuckle when I stumbled across this.

Drew 
--
drew betz : wj8k : dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   
"Our campaign is the opposite of 'competence.'"
- Clinton aide Eli Segal, quoted in the 7/22/92 _Wall Street Journal_ 
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,talk.environment
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Whole Foods and Coors -- The Thrilling Second Episode
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:23:28 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul22125033@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

>I advocate boycotting Ben and Jerry ice cream.  I don't agree with
>their donating part of their profits to some leftist cause - I
>forget which.

Hell, ice cream is BAD for you! If we are against tobacco companies 
shouldn't we be against Ben & Jerry for the exact same reason?

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------275 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:26:20 GMT

crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:

>I certainly would like to hear 'your' definition of the 'Greenhouse Effect',

I don't have a personal definition on the Greenhouse Effect. I didn't make
it up, I have done extensive reading on it, though. The definition I
would extend would be the standard scientific explanation of the Greenhouse
Effect.

>> It has been proven in numerous laboratory experiments.
>
>When?  Are you equating the fact that CO2 (among others) absorb certain
>wavelengths of radiation to proving the 'greenhouse effect'?

Ever been a greenhouse? I have.

>'REAL SCIENCE' is that the Earths atmosphere is made up of 78% Nitrogen,
>21% Oxygen...Everything else is <1%, and if it's CO2 that's bothering
>you...please relax..it's .0033% (even after you DOUBLED it!!)

Yes, everything in the atmosphere other than Nitrogen and Oxygen are classified
as "trace gasses". However, quoting from "National Geographic", October 1990,

 o The trace gasses in the atmosphere -- carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
   oxide, CFCs -- are rising rapidly. They are already at the highest levels
   of the past 160,000 years.

 o These gasses incontrovertably alter the earth's radiation balance through
   the greenhouse effect.

 o Average global temperature has risen about one degree Fahrenheit in the
   past century, though not steadily.

And admittedly questions remain. "will this unusual warmth continue?" "will
cooler-than-normal seasons or years return?" "what is 'normal'?"

>>Check out Climatic Change, Vol 16, pp 1-4. 
>
>Is this considered a 'Scientific' or 'Unbiased' ?

My opinion apparently does not matter to you. Read it for yourself and make
your own mind.

>>Warming is in dispute, the Greenhouse Effect is NOT.
>
>Yes it is, or we wouldn't be talking..

Do some research. I have. Do you want some cites?

>>dispute on Global Warming is not whether or not the Earth is warming,
>>it is. The dispute is how much hotter it will probably get and what
>>the possible consequences are.
>
>Yes it is...no it isn't...

Do some research. I have. Do you want some cites?

>I never said it did...but isn't it curious that NC is so much more in-sinc
>with the whole world than is MS?  Just for my curiosity, who did measure
>the worlds temp??

The data has been collected by the University of Anglia and the UK
Meteorology Office.

>  Very few areas even have 20 years of Climatic data,
>alot of the world has NONE! (you know of anyone measuring the temp in 
>any of the deserts, seas...).  My personal non-scientific opinion is
>that you bit off and swallowed a bunch of non-scientific garb put out
>by the liberals and radicles. ;-)

Non-scientific garb? I guess the country's pre-eminante publication on
science, namely Science, is non-scientific garb?
-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: jpennell@axion.bt.co.uk (John Pennell)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: "Keep Your Pollution!" (Article)
Date: 29 Jul 92 07:54:16 GMT
Reply-To: jpennell@axion.bt.co.uk (John Pennell)
Organization: British Telecom Research Labs


I agree, as I have posted to other newsgroups, the chemical involved in the Bhopal disaster was Methyl Isocyanate.  Its manufacture in the USA was banned by the EPA (Enviromental Protection Agency) because of its inherent volatility at normal air pressure and temperature.

Jonnie Pennell - "So long and thanks for all the fish" - Save the Dolphins
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: "Keep Your Pollution!" (Article)
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:54:00

I think this article by Maneka Gandhi is nonsense, but I have time
to comment on only two items.

1. It is asserted that Union Carbide manufactured a chemical at
Bhopal that it was not allowed to manufacture in the U.S.  At the
time of the Bhopal accident it was reported that Union Carbide
made the same chemical, methylene chloride if I remember correctly,
in West Virginia.

2. "resources that it [the West] extracts forcibly".  This assumes
that the Government of India, of which he was a minister, was helpless.

Actually the issues addressed in this article are matters of Indian
internal politics.  However, this Indian politician finds it
appropriate to put out what is essentially domestic propaganda
in the form of an attack on the West.  I assume he knows his
business as a politician, and attacking the West is what gains
political power in India.  It seems unlikely that the best way
that India can get good water is by coercing Western companies
that do business or want to do business in India.  These companies
won't solve India's problems and will avoid investment if pushed
too hard.

3. He thinks Europe shouldn't import flowers from India.  I assume
that some Indian farmers grow flowers for the European market,
because flowers command a higher price.

4. He says that 1/7 of European cattle are fed on grain imported
from the East.  American farmers would be happy to take over that
market.  American farmers also complain about world agricultural
prices but manage to live rather well.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: balaji@nexus.yorku.ca (V Balaji)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Saddam, Bush, Rabin, Clinton: speculation
Date: 27 Jul 92 12:17:24 GMT
Organization: York University

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>If I were Rabin I might have said to Baker...
[etc.]

What is MUCH more likely is that the whole incident has been fabricated
to get Bush re-elected.
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2501 soc.motss:32521 talk.politics.misc:35953 alt.individualism:4594
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Private Discrimination
Date: 25 Jul 92 17:00:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Jul25.170035.17166
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <2532@nlsun1.oracle.nl>, 
jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin) said:

> I need some clarification... of the Libertarian position on
> anti-discrimination laws.

> Aren't such laws society's way of saying that this type of behavior
> is something up with which it will not put? The so-called
> representatives of society decide that, to the best of their
> knowledge, most members of the society do not condone this behavior
> and therefore provide sanctions to discourage it?
> 
> [...]
> 
> How do T. Archer and the librtarians propose that society discourage
> behavior that it sees as wrong and/or hurtful to the minority
> members?

As I understand it, the libertarian position is that individual people
have rights, liberties, etc., and that the thing called "society" does
not.  Therefore "society" can say whatever it wants about what
behavior is acceptable and what is not, but it has no right to the
enactment of laws which enforce its opinion.

My understanding of libertarianism on this issue, in a nutshell, with
the disclaimer that I only speak for myself:

   People -- and only people -- have certain rights and liberties,
   simply by definition (a close variation on the old "We hold these
   truths to be self-evident" riff).  [Insert list here.]

   People can do whatever they want, so long as they don't violate
   somebody else's rights and liberties.

   The purpose of the state is to protect people's rights and
   liberties from infringements by other people.

Obviously, there's some room for disagreement as to exactly what
should go into the place of that "[insert list here]" place-holder,
but that's the general framework of the thing.  Does "right not to be
discriminated against" go on that list?  Some libertarians would say
yes, some would say no, most would probably say that it depends on the
exact nature of the discrimination.  Does "right not to be despised
because of your gender, sexual alignment, skin color, etc." belong on
the list?  I think that most libertarians (including me) would say no.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2552 alt.rush-limbaugh:3202 talk.politics.misc:36733
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Date: 31 Jul 92 05:47:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: LLNL

In article <1017@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>				I am the NRA		  Steven R. Fordyce

	For what reason? Are you _that_ confident you'll wind up on
top of the big armed free-for-all that the NRA seems to think is the
ideal? I don't know of the NRA wanting to find ways of avoiding using
guns, other than to proclaim how law-abiding they are. After all, in a
confrontation, the advantage will be to whomever draws their gun
first.

	I am very disappointed that the NRA does not push for
nonlethal weapons, like Mace and stun guns, to be more available, not
to mention defense measures like bulletproof vests.

	Personally, I'd prefer wearing a bulletproof vest and a helmet
to wielding a gun.

20z>uunet!sequent!ether!stevef	   . . .  	The only fair tax is no tax!

	No tax? How is law enforcement to be funded? Or it to support
itself by collecting fines? Anyone for speed traps?
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2499 alt.rush-limbaugh:3087 talk.politics.misc:35949
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Control of the media (was: Some reasons...)
Date: 25 Jul 92 16:04:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1014@bug.UUCP>, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) said:

> > Control of any business, like a newspaper or a television network,
> > comes from the top.  That "80% of the people working at the big 3
> > network news desks are registered Democrats" isn't relevant if the
> > tiny group of people who control the networks are conservatives.
> > [wdstarr]

> What evidence do you have that they are conservative, or that they
> affect the content of the news if they are?

I neither have nor claimed to have any such evidence -- I was speaking
hypothetically with the sole intent of showing that "the majority of
the foot soldiers in the media are liberals" data does not prove
liberal control of the media.  I wasn't saying that there is or is not
liberal control; I was just saying that it can't be proven by the type
of argument that was being used in the [now long-forgotten] article
that I was responding to.  Sorry for not being clear enough.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: jjspence@IASTATE.EDU (Jeffrey J Spencer)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Reply-To: jjspence@IASTATE.EDU (Jeffrey J Spencer)
Organization: Iowa State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:53:29 GMT

No! The Greenhouse Effect has been observed and it is destroying the planet!
Well at least it is on Venus.  They have lovely global warming due to a year
round cloud cover that is ohh so thick.  But wait! we have measured a lot of
carbon dioxide in Venus's atmosphere.  Could it be that Venus once flourished
with life until they burned one to many lumps of coal.  Rush was right on one
day when he told of how 98% of global warming is due to water vapor alone, CO2
is just part of the other 2%.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Saddam, Bush, Rabin, Clinton: speculation
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 27 Jul 92 09:26:12

In article <balaji.712239444@yorku.ca> balaji@nexus.yorku.ca (V Balaji) writes:

   jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

   >If I were Rabin I might have said to Baker...
   [etc.]

   What is MUCH more likely is that the whole incident has been fabricated
   to get Bush re-elected.

I was sure someone would say that.  How did Bush get the Swedes and
the French and the rest of the U.N. to take part in his fabrication?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2509 alt.politics.homosexuality:5187
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: ACTIVISM: (REMINDER) Give Levi-Strauss A Call!
Date: 25 Jul 92 23:14:34 GMT
Organization: Western Software Lab

In article <Jym.24Jul1992.10pm1@naughty-peahen.org> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>=o= So I'd like to remind folks to give Levi's a call and let
>them know you support them.  This is their 800 number:
>
>			  800/872-5384
>
>You'll get a touch-tone menu -- press "1" for the charitable
>contributions line.
>
>=o= You might want to extend the courtesy of calling them at
>their non-800 number, especially if you live near San Francisco.
>That number is 415/544-6000.


Or, do what I did.  Buy a couple of pairs of 501s, take the proof
of purchases, add a nice letter, and send it to:

Levi Straus and Co.
Consumer Affairs
1155 Battery LS4
San Francisco, CA 94111

I know not everyone has the $$$ to just drop on more clothes but 
Levi's is a company and they pay attention to the bottom line.

Later,
George


--
Better weapons lead to better and better weapons, until the earth is
a grenade with the fuse burning.	--- William S. Burroughs
					    _Cities of the Red Night_
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ))
Subject: Re: Media bias
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 10:55:05 GMT
Keywords: bias

alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:

>	Just a guess, but maybe for the same reason that Larry King is
>so popular? Must be the far right politics that they both preech, huh?

Funny, but Limbaugh is always claiming that King is a liberal.

MD
-- 
--  Dr. Michael P. Deignan (deg.pend.)      /   "Its okay dear,
--  Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net     /     you can show me...
--    UUCP: ..!uunet!anomaly!kd1hz        /      I'm a Doctor..."
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Control of the media (was: Some reasons...)
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 10:42:13 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul25122315@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

>I intended to copy down the newspaper headlines at the time of the
>Democratic convention to compare them with the headlines, if any, at
>the time of the Republican convention.  

Many libraries will still have their July issues on the shelf in late
August; at that time one could go through the headlines in some 
standard way (eg list all relevent front page headlines during 
each convention week) for comparison.  If somebody does this, please
post the results; they might be quite interesting!


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:25:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.023750.2194@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:


>It doesn't take a conspiracy in order to have bias. If you want a good
>example of media bias, consider the gun control issue. You see lots
>of publicity for Handguns Control, Inc, and yet the major network
>refuse to sell advertising to the NRA. Almost every show on guns
>or violence is severely biased, and full of factual errors. The
>media bandies around terms like assault rifles, and yet very few actual
>assault weapons exist. The media invented the "cop killer" bullet that
>doesn't exist. The media invented "plastic guns that can't be detected
>by metal detectors" that don't exist. Time magazine stated that it
>would use its NEWS (as opposed to editorial) articles to further the
>cause of handgun control. The president of NBC is trying to get the
>2nd amendment repealed. 

Note that he made no claims of any "conspiracy," only consensus.

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2406 alt.rush-limbaugh:2920 talk.politics.misc:34990