waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes: >In article <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu>, slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes: >|> >|>	The BATF should have left at the beginning, they should have looked at >|>Koresh's personality.  Instead they thought, "They have guns.  We have bigger >|>guns.  Let's go get 'em!" >|> >|>	They botched it from day one.  They shouldn't have been there in the >|>first place. > >The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the >Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.          As you're no doubt aware, Phill, there are probably five or six different, mutually contradictory versions of the events in Waco on Feb. 28 all of which are from reputable news sources, ranging the the  Associated Press to TIME to Newsweek.          Some of the earliest reports issued by the AP were not at all flattering the to BATF, and produced some question as to who fired first.          Now, for all I know, you were there to witness it.  But I kind of doubt that.  >Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare >a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control >the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that >they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and  >attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang >the doorbell.          The BATF, in a letter they've been sending out to people, says both that they were ambushed because they lost the element of surprise, and that they went up and knocked on the door and had it slammed in their faces.          It strikes *me* as kind of strange to rely on surprise to serve a warrant by knocking on the door.          There are at least questions that need to be answered.  >The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked >assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish.           This paranoid assertation was made by witnesses to the original assault who stated that the BATF initiated hostilities by throwing concussion grenades and reported by the Associated Press.  >Had they >expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who >would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up >in a tank and broken the door down on day one.          Phill, the BATF were in a firefight with the BD for *forty-five* minutes.  I find it hard to believe that if they were expecting peaceful citizens they *wouldn't* have shown up in live-stock trailers and would have retreated immediately.          If they *were* expecting peacful citizens, why show up with over a hundred officers, some of which clearly visible on video to be carrying  sub-machineguns, and *3* National Guard Helicopters?          I don't know who did what, but, as I said, there are questions that  need to be answered.
In article <1993Apr17.024646.28396@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (BLORT! eeeep! Hwaaah.) writes: > 	Wouldn't one expect more heterosexual men than gay men to be  > promiscuous simply due to a larger group of potential partners? >  > 	Just a thought. >  > 						-Matt  You might -- except that gay men are MUCH more promiscuous than straight men -- which shows how damaged and screwed up gay men are.
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:  >_TOO_ many.  Agreed.  We need more folks to admit they're bi.  --  Michael D. Adams	(starowl@a2i.rahul.net)	  Champaign, IL / southeast AL
In article <C5K5LC.CyF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (La wrence C. Foard) writes: >In article <15378@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> >> >>From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2: >> >>    Male sex survey: Gay activity low >> >>    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough >>    examination of American men's sexual practices published since >>    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2 >>    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and >>    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual. >> >>    The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday >>    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than >>    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional >>    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report. > >1) So what?  So there are less gays, then the gays claim. > >2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers >   gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of >   us then this is an event unprecidented in history... >  Dream on.  Abortion and African-American Civil rights rallies don't even bring in half of that.  >>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners. >>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3. > >Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners.... >  I was wondering why I wasn't getting laid.  >>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson, >>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that >>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general >>male population. > >And what did this study show for number of sexual contacts for those >who said they where homosexual? Or is that number to inconvient for >you.... >  If it's more, then who cares?  >>It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for >>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically >>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are. > >Fuck off >  Actually, I bet you more gay/bi men are as not as promiscuous as gay men,  because more of them could have the "option" of living a straight life, and  with social pressures, probably would at least try.  >-- >------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               . >\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . . > \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . . >  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . . >  Did you know that is is a fact that homosexuality was comparatively high in  Hitler's storm troopers (SA) before he came to power.  I wonder if they got to  put the triangles on themselves......
In article <1993Apr5.144853.3842@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com> dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau) writes:    ... an amazing illustration of disconnection from reality.  Glad to see that you agree that the current Government is reticent about admitting the sovereignty of the people!  Speaking from personal experience, I have had judges illegally assume jurisdiction even after I demanded that the DA prove such jurisdiction on the record, and the DA stood mute.  I have also had an appellate court uphold such action and hide behind California Rules of Court, Rule 106 ("The judges of the appellate department shall not be required to write opinions in any cases decided by them, but may do so whenever they deem it advisable or in the public interest.").  That is reality, I agree.
Perhaps 1%, but most likely not more than 2%.  A new study (discrediting Kinsey) says so.
In a previous article, garrett@Ingres.COM (THE SKY ALREADY FELL. NOW WHAT?) says:  >In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com>, blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)         writes... >I guess your strength isn't in math. Clinton hasn't been president for >6 months. In other words, it's BUSH'S Wiretapping Initiative. >>        You're right, I bailed out in Diff Eq.  Nevertheless, I would       suggest to YOU that there is a difference between a "proposed BILL,      stalled in Congress" and a "executive order, crammed down OUR       THROATS".   Do you disagree?   >>	I strongly urge you to consider moving any savings you  >>	have overseas, into protected bank accounts, while  >>	you are still able. >>  >Have you?          Went to the Post Office on Friday, got my passport apps in.
In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes: > On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling > his so called stimulus package. > It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free > immunizations for poor kids. > So now Clinton is claiming that the republicans are holding the health of > poor kids hostage for blatantly political gains. >  > Aside from the merits (or lack thereof) of another free immunization program, > just what is such a program doing in a bill that is supposedly about > creating jobs.  Jobs?  What the hell have jobs to do with it?  It's another touchy-feely  program from the new, vapid administration.  The fact is, the major claim made for "universal" immunization -- that "all children will be immunized" -- has absolutely no validity.  Several states already have U.I. programs, have had these programs for _years_. The result: on average, their success rates are no better than the national average.  It seems that the gummint hasn't yet figured out a way to MAKE parents bring their kids in.  Yet another case of shameless demagoguery from the "new" Democrats, the "agents of change."    > If Clinton is so hot to get this immunization program, why doesn't he and > the democrats just introduce it as a stand alone bill. Isn't it possible > that Clinton is the one doing the blatant political (read pork) manipulations > here. He is telling the republicans, pass my muti-billion dollar package, > or I will go to the people and tell them that you are opposed to > immunizing poor kids.  What?  Clinton using this issue for _partisan gain_?  Do tell.   > I have never thought highly of Clinton, but stunts like this lower my > opinion of him even further. >  > I thought one of Clinton's campaign themes was that he was going to be > a new kind of politician. This kind of manuevering would have made LBJ > proud.  All together now... c'mon, you know the words... "Meet the new boss! Same as  the old boss!"  And the chorus: "We won't get fooled again!"  ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------   Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)
Theodore A. Kaldis writes: #> Ah, I know women who wear miniskirts without wearing underwear, and #> they are not prostitutes. #No, I suppose they must be sluts.  Nope. They both are very nice women, whom I'm good friends with.   Or do you think its ok to rape anyone when you don't like the way they dress?  #> Gee, Both Clayton and Kaldis engaging in ad hominem arguments. #Where?  Calling someone names, as you did. Are you ignorant of what an ad hominem argument is?  #You provided absolutely no evidence, chump.  I provided a quote from the judge. What else do you want?
Oops, I forgot to set read permission.  It's fixed now.  ftp netcom.com login: anonymous password: your@email.address cd pub/mvp binary get clinton.zip  You need pkzip 2.x or the latest net.zip to un-"deflate" this.  Economic stats since Day One, plus all of the myriad ways Slick Willie and the Gang of 535 are preparing to do it to us.  From Ron Brown's desk, so any distortion is pro-Democrat, can you believe it?
paolucci@spot.Colorado.EDU (Paolucci Paul) writes:  >In article <C5Gpto.Kq0@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes: >>Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue >[biased and decidedly not-as-funny-as-dave stuff deleted...]  >I sure hope that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE is enjoying these "lists"... [stuff deleted] >I'm no Clinton fan, but I'm no Ipser fan...  Then why not simply stop reading them. This isn't intended as a flame, but your post reminds me of the old joke:   Patient: "Doctor it hurts when I do this."  Doctor: "Then stop doing that."
brian@gab.unt.edu (Brian "Drakula" Stone) writes:  >>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners. >>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3. >>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson, >>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that >>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general >>male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for >>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically >>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are. >>--   >Isn't is funny how someone who seems to know nothing about homosexuality  >uses a very flawed (IMHO) source of information to pass jusgement on all  >homosexual and bisexual men.  It would seem more logical to say that since  >the heterosexual group of men is larger then the chances of promiscuity  >larger as well.  In my opinion, orientation has nothing to do with it.  I don't understand what you are getting at here.  If the chances of  promiscuity are larger, yet the rate of promiscuity is lower in the heterosexual community, doesn't that imply that the homo/bi sexual population is then  even more promiscuous than the raw statistics imply?   (No axe to grind here I'm just a scientist and I hate to see statistics abused.)  >Men are men and they all like sex.  I am a gay male.  I have had sex three  >times in my life, all with the same man.  Before that, I was a virgin.  I am a hetero man and have had sex with one woman in my life (my wife).  It is  very pleasing to me to be able to say that.  I hope you have the same feeling as I do.  I also wish that you could (if you wanted) experience the joys and trials of being committed to someone for life (there is something about marriage that makes the commitment much greater than one might expect).  >So... whose promiscuous?  >Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have no morals.  Just because  >someone is heterosexual doesn't mean they do.  Look at the world....   >Statistics alone prove that most criminals are by default hetero...  Don't forget about the culture.  Sadly, we don't (as a society) look upon homosexuality as normal (and as we are all too well aware, there are alot of people who condemn it).  As a result, the gay population is not encouraged to develop "non-promiscuous" relationships.  In fact there are many roadblocks put in the way of such committed relationships.  It is as if the heterosexual community puts these blocks there so as to perpetuate the claim that gays  are immoral.  "My, if we allowed gays to marry, raise children ... we might just find out they're as moral as we are, can't have that can we?"   Just some thoughts.  Flame away. :)
In article <15378@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: >  > From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2: >  >     Male sex survey: Gay activity low >  >     A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough >     examination of American men's sexual practices published since >     the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2 >     percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and >     1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.  Actually, what the study shows is that 2 percent of the men surveyed *said* they engaged in homosexual sex and 1 percent *said* they  considered themselves exclusively homosexual.  The point being that what people say and what they acutally do may be different.  It is interesting that this clip from the newspaper did not mention that difference.  Maybe it is conservative media bias.  :-)  >     The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday >     by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than >     the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional >     wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.
In article <1993Apr20.153450.27407@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: >Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for >their deaths.  She should resign immediately.  She should have  >understood that David Koresh was a madman who would do anything >against the children if he became provoked.  All the warning  >signs were there and she ignored them.  She provoked Koresh >into killing the children.
In article <7166@pdxgate.UUCP> a0cb@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Chris Bertholf) writes: )MCARTWR@auvm.american.edu (Martina Cartwright) writes: ) ) )>The official and legal term for rape is "the crime of forcing a FEMALE  )>to submit to sexual intercourse." ) )Please, supply me with some references.  I was not aware that all states )had the word "FEMALE" in the rape statutes.  I am sure others are surprised )as well.  I know thats how it works in practice (nice-n-fair, NOT!!), but )was unaware that it was in the statutes as applying to FEMALES only, )uniformly throughout the U.S.  I agree mostly with Chris.  It is (unfortunately, IMO) true that the *FBI* figures for rape based on the 'uniform crime report' report only female rapes. However, some states (such as Illinois) are not tabluated because they refuse to comply with this sexist definition!
On Sat, 17 Apr 1993 20:42:58 GMT, Greg Hennessy observed: : In article <philC5n6D5.MK3@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: : #Tells you something about the fascist politics being practiced ....  : Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism.   Is that what they called it when Truman forced integration of the armed forces, despite the opposition of Congress and most of the American public at that time?  -- Michael D. Adams          (starowl@a2i.rahul.net)          Enterprise, Alabama
In article <C5qo0o.888@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes: > In <1993Apr17.161720.18197@bsu-ucs> 00cmmiller@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes: >  > >  > |sorry, i didn't see him "charge" the cops.  i saw him trying to get away > |from people who were beating him.  i guess we each see what we want to > |see. > |candace miller >  > If this is what you saw, then you did not see the start of the video. > When the vidoe starts, King is lying on the ground, surrounded by cops. > Noone is beating him. King then gets up and charges one of the officers. > (Powell?) While falling back the officer pulls out his nightstick and strikes > King with it. The blow appears to land near the shoulders of the head. > --
In article <1qpakjINNiq2@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (Wil liam December Starr) writes: > >In article <1993Apr16.171354.3127@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, >rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) said: > >> However, legalizing it and just sticking some drugs in gas stations to >> be bought like cigarettes is just plain silly.  Plus, I have never >> heard of a recommended dosage for drugs like crack, ecstasy, chrystal >> meth and LSD.  The 60 Minute Report said it worked with "cocaine" >> cigarettes, pot and heroin. > >Or, the government could adopt the radical and probably unAmerican idea >that citizens are free to live their lives as they wish, and simply >decriminalize cocaine, marijuana, heroin, LSD, etc.  Please explain why >the idea of allowing recreational drugs to be "bought like cigarettes" >is "just plain silly."  After all, it works just fine for nicotine... >  Yeah, Cancer is pretty cool, isn't it.
In article <16BB7A1DE.V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> Richard Hoenes, V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU writes: >Such a hostage situation has taken place on numerous occasions >with the result of the police trying to take the place by >force and the result being the death of the hostages and the >gunmen. However, this is the first time I've heard of >the blame landing squarely on the police. >  >In this country we have a policy of not negotiating a back down >from terrorists and hostage takers since that only encourages >other terrorists and hostage takers.  NOT an accurate analogy. David Koresh did not take a bunch of hostages and then call the BATF with a ransom note. You make it sound as if the BATF showed up to save those children in the first place. I have some interesting news for youBATF has absolutely NO jurisdiction in child abuse cases.   It seems to me that the BATF showed up, took the Davidians hostage.  Then the FBI showed up, negotiated to have a few of the hostages  released, but were unable to keep the BATF from killing the rest  of the poor people trapped inside the compound.          Steve Martin         Steve_Martin@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com
In article <1993Apr15.093957.1213@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann) writes: > In article <1993Apr13.122543.1682@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes: > >  > > In article <C5E2JA.849@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes: > >> This past Thursday VP GOre threw out the first ball at the home opener for > >> the Atlanta Braves. According to the news reports he was quite loudly booed. > >> (No, Dr. Norman, these were not your typical beer swilling red-necks.) > >>  > >> Personally I wouldn't have paid any more attention to the incident except > >> that the evening news when describing the event, went on to comment that > >> being booed was nothing unusual since it was normal for audiences to > >> boo at this point since the celebrity was delaying the start of the game. > >>  > >> What a bunch of crock. I have never heard of any incident in which the > >> thrower of the ceremonial ball has been booed before. > >  > > Dan Quayle got roundly booed in Milwaulkee last year.  (I was listening  > > on the radio).  This was the game that Quayle told the Brewers players that > > he would like to see them play the Orioles in the ALCS. >  > It's come to this, has it?  Defending Al Gore by comparing him to Dan Quayle?  Who compared Quayle to Gore?  Mark said he had never heard of any incident in which the thrower of the ceremonial ball had been booed before.  I mentioned another incident.  (And if the media had a liberal bias, I'm sure he would have heard of the Quayle incident.)  If I was to compare Quayle to anyone, it most likely would be Elmer Fudd.  > I'd say that about says it all... back to the pit with ye, back to alt.fan. > dan-quayle!  Begone!
In article <1qmtl1$71r@gondor.sdsu.edu> cosc0000@ucssun1.sdsu.edu (Riyadh Al-ha jmoosa) writes: >kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes: >> Perhaps 1%, but most likely not more than 2%.  A new study >> (discrediting Kinsey) says so. >> -- >>   The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis >>   my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu >>   believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis >>   as this would hold such views??? | > >    My understanding from my psycology classes is that the percentage is >    more like 10-12% world wide.  I would really like to know your source >    for the 1-2% figure. > >                             Riyadh Moosa. >                             SDSU-Chemistry. >                             cosc0000@ucssun1.sdsu.edu  Some survey conducted by the U.S. government and some group (I don't know  which) did what they were calling on all the news shows this morning, "The most comprehensive survey of sexuality in the past 50 years".  Not an exact quote,  but you get the idea.  This low percentage is merely one more in a ton of evidence disproving the 10%  theory.
In article <16BB98B5A.V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>, V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes) writes: > Can people please stop the 'I think/know the BATF/FBI are completely > responsible but they'll cover it up so that the investigation will > show that Koresch is responsible' bs.  Well they could unseal the original warrent (Why was i sealed in the first place?), release their video & tapes (from their listening devices inside the compound) and quit makeing contradictory statements.  Do you believe their statement that the children were killed by lethal injection?  They later stated that the childrens bodies were burned to the point the would be hard to identify.  So how did they come up with the lethal injection theory?  >                                        In an investigation of this > size with the feds, state, and civilians involved in the > investigation it would be practially impossible to cover up.  Unless the evidence was destroyed or other evidence planted.  > And with Republicans like Arlen Spector calling for investigations, > this isn't going to be handled with kid gloves.  You mean "Magic bullet" Spector?  I know, a lone gunman killed all the Branch Davidians.   :-) || :-(