waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In a previous article, ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) says: > >This, too, is ridiculous.  In no way can the provoker be considered >to have played more than an exceedingly minor role.  A person >who kills is ultimately responsible for his own actions.         Frankly, I'm sick of being lied to.  It was bad before Clinton,       and now it's worse.  Here, listen to Ricks' ( FBI ) words,       ONE-HALF hour before the fire:         " Come out with your hands up.  This matter is NOW OVER. "        Now, I hear Ricks ( and REno ) claiming that this was just        "another incremental step in pressure".  More bullshit.        Why did they pick 6 AM  Monday morning?  So nobody would       NOTICE.  So everyone would be busy at work, starting a new       week.  More bullshit.        Did the FBI hold back fire engines?  Here, let me paraphrase       Sessions"         " no, we didn't hold back the engines.  We had them on           stand-by, blah, balh, blah...   And so, to protect the          the fireman, we didn't allow the engines to enter until          it was safe "       WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?   " YES, WE HAVE NO BANANAS? "       What the HELL kind of double-talk is this?  No, we didn't, so      blah, balh, we did.    Huh?       I WATCHED this.       Clinton takes responsibility, "EVEN THOUGH" it wasn't his       decision.  MOre BULLSHIT.  Does he, or does he NOT, take      responsibility?!   No more "even though" bullshit.  Yes.      Or no.         Christ.
Chapter 7 operation in Somlia.  Almost Chapter 7 in Cambodia and Yugo.     'Bout time the UN started using force to make the peace happen.     Hopefully, they will soon be doing the same with world economics.
In article <C52CLI.G09@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes: > >In article <1phgakINN9pb@apache.dtcc.edu>, bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe) writes:   >In the UK there is a tradition of old retired Colnels who bore the dinner >guests rigid with their descriptions of old campagns. Ed is clearly one >of this type of people who fails to see when a joke is spent.    You are hereby authorized not to laugh.  By special dispensation of her Hillariness.  This offer void where prohibited by law, consumer must pay applicable sales tax..... --  ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: -        | |Internet: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu        |  - Don't liberals just kill you?| |CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE        |Save whales; and kill babies?    |
In article <8597@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes: >When I heard the latest approval rating reported for Clinton, I >laughed so hard I forgot the exact numbers.  Maybe one of the  >Clintonettes can refresh my memory... > >Has his rating dropped to 48 or 49 percent?  Ha HA HA HA HA! > >*snick* oh my either way, it's still the lowest rating any President >has ever mustered in his first 100 days, since these polls started being taken.  Hum, I guess this has some significance as opposed to having an incredible drop during the last days in office. Unfortuantely having a loss in the polls during the last days of office usually means no re-election. Ask George.  > >He was finished before he started!  Good one, Roooster. Thats hard to top.
In article <mwalker-160493090617@mwalker.npd.provo.novell.com> mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker) writes: > >> Copyright (c) Edward A. Ipser, Jr., 1993 > >This means we can't quote Ed without his permission. No using these lists >in your .sigs, folks!  Oh, darn. Okay, okay, let's stop slamming Ipser, and get on with making fun of other people.
In article <visser.735172473@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes: > >Dave Borden (borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu) wrote: >: The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the >: draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now, >: and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior >: with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us >: on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and >: Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to. >: Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time. >: Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit. > >	More "gridlock" talk from another relic of the past.  The >Selective Service system creates jobs and is an investment in  >the future of america......and whats wrong with that? >   Do we want to 'create jobs'? or do we want jobs created that are productive   in our supply/demand economy? If your answer is the former then we can   just round up all jobless people and pay them to build sandcastles in   the desert. If you answer the latter then I fail to see how another   bureaucracy produces anything.
In article <1993Apr19.140457.27718@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes... >In article <18APR199319273822@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes: >> :>Steve,  you're the one who suggested that a failed government should be an  :>ideal proving ground,  I never felt that way in the first place.  Quite the  :>contrary,  I think a better proving ground would be someplace that already :>had a governemnt that would prevent outright acts of agression,  yet had a :>strong spirit of individualism and initiative.  Someplace like... Texas :-) :> :>Mr. Grinch   :  : :  :And while Texas taxpayers might willingly eliminate tax-support for UT :and TAMU, I'm not sure they'd support gutting the football programs. : Football can pay for itself.   :Then there's the impact on Ross Perot's fortune of eliminating the various >state supported programs where he's made his money...  Why?  He's already made it.  Sure nodoby else will be able to bilk the public in the same specific ways,  but why should he (or I) care?   >  :All in all, Texas doesn't seem to be a very likely place for :libertarianism to take hold. :-) >  More likely than most places.  When I was there the most "important"  state issue was whether to have a state income tax or instead legalize a popular vice for fund raising,  and vice won a decisive victory!  >jsh  Mr. Grinch
garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes...  >It is interesting, sometimes, to listen to U.S. news as seen through >the eyes of another country.......  >B.B.C. world news service, on short-wave, originating out of London, >reports that a survivor of the Waco massacre states that a tank, when >making a hole in the wall of the building, knocked over a kerosene >lamp and that is how the fire started.  Attempts were made by the >people inside to put out the fire, but it spread too quickly.  >Has anyone in U.S. heard anything similar or are U.S. government >spin-doctors censoring such information?  	It was on CBS yesterday. The explanation is reasonable enough. 	Then again, if the fire was accidental, why didn't more 	people get out?  >The B.B.C. news is also reporting that about 20 of those that died >were british citizens.  	That's true. I think there were several Australians in the  	group as well.                    _____  _____                   \\\\\\/ ___/___________________   Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________ ________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/ \_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/     \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/                 \_ / /__________/                  \/____/\\\\\\  			 \\\\\\
In <9460@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> ssoar@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Steven E Soar) writes:  |In article <C5217t.J5B@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes: |>  |> The result is that Clinton now HOPES to reduce the deficit to a level  |> ABOVE where it was when Reagan left office.  |Which, considering the amount Bush&congress added to it, would be a |not-inconsiderable achievement.  |While we're on the subject, I also believe that the supply-side claim that |reducing taxes raised revenue is also false, because they typically factor in  You need to hop over to talk.politics.misc. Wee have been chewing on this gem for awhile. The challenge has been made to name a single supply sider who ever said this. For the last three weeks the challenge has gone unmet. I issue the same challenge to you.
In article <C51vzu.I1r@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:  >  Government-Mandated Energy Conservation is Unnecessary and Wastful,  >  Study Finds  While I agree with much of this post, one point seems mis-directed...  >    When standards of living, population densities, and industrial >  structures are controlled for, the United States is no less energy >  efficient than Japan and more energy efficient than many of the Group >  of Seven nations.  And when controlled for usage of oil, gas, etc. energy efficiency in all countries turns out to be identical :-)  To take population density as an example, one way to reduce energy used in transportation is surely to concentrate the population in dense urban areas (though this might, of course, have other disadvantages, possibly even relating to energy use).  The fact that Japan is forced to do this by the nature of the country, while the US is not, does not mean that people in the US would be unable to do this if given sufficient motive to conserve energy.
If you look through this newsgroup, you should be  	able to find Clinton's proposed "Wiretapping" Initiative 	for our computer networks and telephone systems.  	This 'initiative" has been up before Congress for at least 	the past 6 months, in the guise of the "FBI Wiretapping" 	bill.  	I strongly urge you to begin considering your future.  	I strongly urge you to get your application for a passport 	in the mail soon.
In article <C5w5CB.Ct4@rahul.net>, starowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams) writes: > On 22 Apr 93 10:39:15 GMT, Theodore A. Kaldis observed: > : alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (amy lynn young-leith) writes: # : # Can someone tell me why when Mr. Cramer spouts on about homosexuals, # : # he only addresses homosexual men, and never, in any post I've read, # : # addressed lesbians? #  # : I can't really speak for Mr. Cramer here, but I can say that a # : homosexual [male] is an entirely different animal than a lesbian. # : There is virtually nothing that is analogous or related between the # : aberrant behaviors practiced by these two groups of deviants. #  # The last time I checked homosexual men and women were both human.  I think Mr. Kaldis was using the expression in the slang sense, though I agree it is NOT an appropriate expression to use in this context.  # They both prefer to engage in sexual acts with people of the same # gender.  There is nothing inherently wrong with the "trademark behaviour" # of either homosexual men or homosexual women, except in the minds of # misinformed folk, clueless folk, and bigots. #  # So what makes homosexual men and homosexual women different animals? #  # Michael D. Adams          (starowl@a2i.rahul.net)          Enterprise, Alabama  1. That homosexual men are extremely promiscuous, and homosexual women are, if any more promiscuous than heterosexual women, it's not by much.  2. That homosexual men are overrepresented among child molesters  (about 30% of child molestation is done by homosexual or bisexual men), while homosexual women don't appear to be similarly over- represented.
In article <15441@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: >In article <C5oG5H.4DE@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes: >> In article <15409@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: >#  ># Well, the obvious point to make is would straight men fuck like rabbits ># if the oppertunity presented itself? >#  ># I reckon *any* *man* would go wildly promiscuous if presented with a ># huge variety of willing partners.  The question here is not of being > >That, I suppose, says a lot about how screwed up you are.   No Cramer it does not.  In this instance you are telling porkies to *yourself* as well as everyone else.  Haven't you ever been to a cafe or restaurant and been absalutely stuffed full of goodies and yet when one more item, just a little different, with a new texture and a new taste, was presented you *somehow* found the space for it.  Maybe you haven't, so what?  It is a widely reported phenomina and I reckon the same applies to sex.    > ># #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine! ># Xavier > > >--  >Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
In article <C5s8Gz.1zE@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes: > >   ALL human communities impose their values on individuals.   >   That's virtually an operational definition of one.  If you can >   find an example of a human community that doesn't then you >   have discovered a new phenomenon in nature.    > >   It's pointless asking whether communities "should" do this; >   they DO do this.  It's like asking whether a leopard "should" >   have spots -- it just evolved that way.  Human communities >   evolved (in both the biological and social senses of "evolve")  >   to have this characteristic.    You can debate whether some  >   *particular* matter should be left up to the individual or >   not -- this is part of the above process of "evolution" --  >   but it is the nature of a human community to impose its values >   on individuals and you will not find a single counterexample >   in nature. > >---peter  At all times in human history, people have killed and stolen from one another.  If you can find an example of where this hasn't happened in history, then you have discovered a new phenomenon in nature.  It is pointless asking whether people "should" do this; they DO do this.  It has just evolved that way.  Humans have evolved to have this characteristivc.  You can debate whether this should be particular matter should be left up to the individual or not, but it is the nature of humans to kill and steal from others and you will not find a single counterexample (of a society without these types) in nature. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Please find a better argument than that's the way it has always been. Child mortality has always been, yet we find it in our hearts to have made an attempt to change that.
Ack! Sorry for the repeat posts: I thought I was posting to the newsgroup on which this appeared. Couldn't figure out why it wasn't appearing in my newsgroup. Stupid of me. Slap my hands. Bang my head against the wall. Sorry! Bloody public anouncements...mumble mumble mumble... ============================================================================ David Matthew Deane (deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu)
>>>>> On 22 Apr 1993 16:59:28 -0700, turmoil@halcyon.com (Tim Crowley) said: Tim> NNTP-Posting-Host: nwfocus.wa.com Tim> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes: >In article <16BB87EF1.V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes) writes: >>  >>Yes we've heard that the survivors are now saying that. We've also >>seen the videotape which shows that the fire started in two or >>three different places which weren't near the tank.  >    I have not seen the tape on CNN.  Which network did you see it on?  Tim> I saw the film on CNN *as* it happend. It was clear from that Tim> tape that the fire started in ONE location. Right where the Tim> tank was attacking, and then had pulled back. There were not Tim> several spots where the fire started, it started in one Tim> location and was spread in the direction of the heavy wind. Tim> The FBI claims to have seen or filmed several starting Tim> points. Yet they keep this hidden. They have spread so much Tim> lies. Well I guess if I was responsible for the mass murder Tim> of 80 people who were exercising constitutional rights, I Tim> would lie about it too...  Gosh, Tim, you must have seen a different live broadcast than I did. While the smoke did emerge from one place initially, it was a considerable distance from the tank, and in a very short time, fire appeared at several places a good distance apart from there.  Then there's that nagging question about why, out of all those people, only a few made any attempts to escape or save the children. If it were me, with my child, [and I wasn't committing suicide,] I believe I would have made SOME attempt to at least save the child. As it was, at least one of the survivors was attempting to GO BACK INTO THE FIRE when they were physically removed. No one lifted a finger to bring out a child, apparently.  How do you explain that? And the two survivors who claimed to have doused the place with lantern oil and SET the fire (no doubt on David's orders).  [At least until the lawyers talked to them.]   Tim> And also, why have they not yet released the search warrant????    That *is* a good question. Maybe because it would be a further embarrassment, seeing as how the ATF went in there in Dirty Harry mode initially.   As stupidly as it all was handled, I find it difficult to believe that the entire FBI has completely gone corrupt under a new administration less than 100 days old. Stupidity and bad decisions and plans have always been with us. They just had an alignment at Waco.  Tim> Seeeeee Ya  turmoil@halcyon.com   FUCK THE POLICE!!!!  See? Freedom of speech abounds.  L. "Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_  I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)  Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\   (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <>
In article <DZVB3B6w164w@cellar.org> techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) writes: >FURY OF MOTHER NATURE >Clearly, man has a long way to go to match nature as a "despoiler" of the  >environment.  BULLSHIT. How many lakes have ceased to be able to support life from purely natural pollution? Man has already done this to scores of lakes. Also, much of the "degredation" you cite was done by cows and pigs.  And why do think there are so many cows around?  Could it be.......cause people raise them?
In article <1r0tvhINNh3s@ctron-news.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com writes: >In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes: >>Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been >>better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months? > >For starters, they could have gone on waiting and negotiating.  The Davidians >weren't going anywhere, and their supplies had to be limited.  Large, perhaps, >but limited.  If they had simply fired the compound by themselves without >gov't tanks smashing down their walls, then at least the gov't would not be >guilty of having _again_ used an inappropriate level of force, and would have >been able to use the meantime to continue to pressure and negotiate.  No, they >would not have looked good on the news in six months or a year.  But they sure >as hell don't look very good now.    True.  Today's Boston Globe interviewed a former Unification Church   leader who is now a consultant on cults.  He said the FBI's approach   was totally wrong.  He said they should have tried to break down the    BD's loyalty to Koresh through psychological means.   Koresh's whole   theology was based on an approaching confrontation with the forces    of evil in the world and a seige mentality based on this.  The Feds   played into his hands **PERFECTLY**.   By surrounding the compound   with tanks and playing loud rock music and glaring lights at them    they strongly reinforced Koresh's message that the outside world was   evil and threatening.    He said instead they should have set up    a picnic atmosphere, and acted inviting and friendly.  If they   broadcast anything over PA systems it should have been loving    relatives reflecting on pleasant events from the cult members'   childhoods.   The idea is to make the outside world and surrender   seem like a pleasant, desirable alternative.   Interesting comments.
kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:  >The chart that follows was taken from the Wednesday, April 14, 1993 >issue of USA Today ("Drug Use Up Among U.S. Eigth-graders" by Mike >Snider, p. 6D).  >    Adolescents' choices  >    Drugs used by eighth graders in the last month: >                      Estimated, per 100 students >                             1991     1992   Pct. chg. >    Alcohol                  25.1     26.1        +4% >    Cigarettes               14.3     15.5        +8% >    Marijuana                 3.2      3.7       +16%  >    Amphetamines              2.6      3.3       +27% >    LSD                       0.6      0.9       +50% >    Cocaine                   0.5      0.7       +40% >    Crack                     0.3      0.5       +67%  >    Source:  University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, >    1993 report  >We are not winning the "war on drugs".  I think you can see that one >of the tactics that the DEA employs to give people the impression that >the "war on drugs" is being won is to selectively quote statistics--- >only statistics that support their contention that drug use has gone >down.  The excerpt from Time magazine that I included in this post is >an excellent example of how organizations like the DEA attempt to >deceive the public.  Unfortunately, there's not much we can learn from the statistics presented here either.  Due to rounding, the 1991 est. for LSD could be anywhere from .550 to .649 and the 1992 est. could be anywhere from .850 to .949. This means that the actual change (if you believe these statistics in the first place) was anywhere from 31% to 73%.  Similarly the increase in cocaine use could be anywhere from 18% to 66% and the increase of crack use could be anywhere from 29% to 120%.  This doesn't even take into account the margin of error which isn't provided here.