waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In <15430@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:  >In article <1993Apr16.164638.27218@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:   ># What was the purpose of this post?  If it was to show a mindless obsession ># with statistics, an incredibly flawed system of reasoning, and a repellent ># hatemonger agenda, then the purpose was accomplished with panache. >#  ># (a) Get a clue.  (b) Get a life.  (c) Get out of my face.  I'm not in yours. >#  ># ----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!  >Yes you are.  When you and the rest of the homosexual community >pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to >hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against >my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying >to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.  Gosh, I have to associate with heterosexuals against my will every day!  That means you've imposed your moral codes on me, now doesn't it?  Fortunately, I have taken the time to get to know some members of the het community and discovered that, hey!  They really AREN'T all evil elitists with no concept of reality!  I've got a few clues for you.  (a) I'm not working to pass any laws.  (b) Our morals are YOUR morals: I imagine you value freedom.  So do we.  If you value your own freedom, you must necessarily accept that these laws are important to protect it.  After all, discriminate in one area and you're open to discriminate in the rest.  (c) I suggest learning a bit more about gays, lesbians, and bis before you post the kind of drivel you have been.  It's obvious that you haven't a clue who you're talking about.  >--  >Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine! >Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.  But not between members of the same sex, right?  How can you live with such hypocrisy?  Drewcifer
In article <1r72jjINNnmm@ctron-news.ctron.com>, smith@ctron.com writes... >mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes: >>	Why is an accidental fire more plausible than a mass suicide,  >>	considering that the Davidians were an apocalyptic cult with >>	a history of armed violence?  >Because the place was a tinder box with straw bales for insulation, and they >wouldn't have time to die from smoke inhalation before the fire reached them. >Those people burned to death, a truly horrible and agonizingly painful way to >die, which I don't think even a fanatic would willingly inflict on himself, let >alone his family.   	You don't know much about the fall of Diem's government in Vietnam. 	Or the traditional Indian practice of Suttee. People have been 	burning themselves to death (or willing to go through such and end) 	for political and religious reasons since the beginning of time. 	Also, death from smoke inhalation is little better than dying from 	the flames themselves. Think about breatning in searing toxic 	gasses. It's not pleasant. 	  >To anyone who remembered Jim Jones and who thought that mass >suicide was a real possibility, self-immolation would simply not be the method >of choice.  	Then again, to a Buddhist monk, it might be. To each his own.  >Far more likely to be bombs, bullets, or poisoned kool-aid.  That's >not to say they definitely didn't do it - I don't make claims either way - but >I find the idea implausible enough to want to see the gov't thoroughly inves- >tigated to determine if _they_ started the fire by accident.   	I'm waiting to see what the government has, too.                      _____  _____                   \\\\\\/ ___/___________________   Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________ ________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/ \_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/     \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/                 \_ / /__________/                  \/____/\\\\\\  			 \\\\\\
In article <1993Apr20.201450.8748@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (some caifone) writes:  > I certainly hope you don't have an SO, sir,  What is "SO" supposed to signify?  I prefer the companionship of a person, not a euphemism.  > because if she heard  Thankfully, you got the gender right.  For I am not a deviant.  > how disparaging you are towards political minorities,  Sexual deviants do not comprise a "political minorit[y]".  > and if she had any shred of self-respect, she'd be out the door.  I only associate with girls who do indeed have self-respect.  But were I to find myself with the sort who would be inclined to head out the door on account of my views regarding the aberrant behavior known as "homosexuality", I would encourage her to indeed do so, and I would further advise her not to let the door whack her on the backside on the way out.  Who needs such an airhead?  >> Pretty soon they will find themselves retreating back into the closet >> where they belong.  > Don't count on it, sweetheart.  Oh, I can't do anything _BUT_ count on it.  After all, it is inevitable, for it is part of the natural order of things.  Throughout history, nature has always asserted itself.  Don't be so arrogant as to assume that this foolish and misguided generation can change the nature of man where practically every other generation has failed. Greater men than you haven't been able to do this.  The above _MOST_ _CERTAINLY_ _WILL_ happen, no matter how much you may wish to pretend otherwise.  Moreover, I'm not your "sweetheart".
In a previous article, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) says:  >	Evidently it was Janet's concern for the babies being slapped by Koresh >that made her give the go-ahead for the ram-n-gas tactics. :( >      Larry King Live was both telling and sickening.  Every other word     out of Janet REno's mouth  was "the little children" ,etc.  Sounded     like Clinton talking.  She made claims that the children were      beaten, etc, DESPITE the pronouncements of social workers that none     of the children who left the compound were abused.  But the REAL     crime:         Larry King, and his censored show.  NOT ONE FUCKING QUESTION       about Reno's possible error.  Just two calls about how she       had made a "good decision".  Now, it doesn't take a rocket       scientist to figure out that SOME people are going to be upset.
Alan Morgan (alanm@efi.com) wrote: : In article <15437@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: :  : >You might -- except that gay men are MUCH more promiscuous than : >straight men -- which shows how damaged and screwed up gay men are. :  : Okay Claytoon, let us say that hypothetically I agree with you that : gay men are much more promiscuous than straight men.  Why does : this indicate they are screwed up people? :  : BTW - It occurs to me that since, in my experience, men are much more :       interested in sex than women and want to have sex much earlier :       in a relationship than women do, that homosexuals would have  :       sex more often simply becuase their partner is of a like mind. :       i.e. heterosexual men would be more promiscuous if they could.  It's my observation that women are more likely to me more strongly indoctronated into now wanting sex that are men. Also there are definite double standards for men and women who are promiscuous.  Could there also be a factor of communication being more direct in  homosexual relationships and culture.  --
In <20APR199308471949@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:  |In article <visser.735286101@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes...  |>	I can't wait for the investigation.  Considering that everyone |>is dead now and the place is burnt to the ground, I guess "honest citizens" |>will just have to take the word of the ATF about how much of a "threat" |>these people were.  |	Just look at the history of Koresh and his folowers. They captured |	the Mount Carmel complex a few yearss ago in a gun battle with a |	rival BD sect, leaving more than one person dead. They weren't  |	exactly the most peace loving bunch.  I wonder where you have been getting your mis-information from. Straight from the BATF itself?  Koresh and his followers did not -capture- the compound a few years ago, it has always been theirs. A few years ago their was an argument over who should lead the group, a gunfight erupted *one* person died. Koresh was charged with the murder. When the sheriff came to arrest him, the sheriff knocked on the dorr and showed Koresh the warrant (a tactic that the BATF might try learning). Koresh and the others charged peacibly surrendered to the sherrif. A trial ensued, the others were found innocent, and the jury hung on Koresh's charge.
In article <C5sEGz.Mwr@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes: >The people who do not want gun control must obviously discount the entire >government story. This is simply rationalisation. It is not enough for  >them to simply dismiss the government as incompetent. That would require >them to come up with a solution themselves. Instead they have to come >up with a government conspiracy theory whereby the government decided to >set out to murder 80 people just to set up some sort of scare to alow them >to get gun control legislation through.  What's despicable is that this sordid incident is being glommed onto by all sorts of people desperately trying to "get a revolution." It makes "ambulance chasing" by lawyers seem like a harmless pastime.  For the last few months, benighted souls have been calling C-SPAN on issues as mundane as budget resolutions, saying that "I don't know, I just have the feeling there is going to be a revolution in this country," and so on.  Get real! For a real case study in revolution, go to Blockbuster Video and check out "Underground," a film made about the Weather Underground in the 70's. Even with all the strife back then, the "revolution" never did come. And Waco is supposed to be the spark of the end times?  In the tape, it is interesting to see the way the Weatherpersons dance around the issue of one of their defining moments, which was when a few of their comrades managed to blow themselves up manufacturing bombs in a Greenwich village townhouse. The problem, one of them said, was that they were so caught up in their armed struggle that they *forgot* about their own personal safety and weren't "careful." But of course that was *society's* fault, a society that didn't instill a sense of worth in the people, so they neglect their own safety.  Current apologists for Koresh may pick up some important rationalization tips from this tape!
In article <15480@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: |> In article <C5qL3y.Avt@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>, joec@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com ( Joe Cipale) writes: |> > In article <15325@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: |> # #However, monogamous homosexual male sex is so rare that for practical |> # #purposes, homosexuality spreads AIDS. |> # #--  |> # #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine! |> # #Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all. |>  |> # You fucking homophobic moron!!!!!!!!!  What about IV drug use?  What about  |> # tainted blood?  What about multi-sexual partners?  If you knew anything |>  |> What about them?  Those also spread AIDS.  Where did I say anything |> different?  Go back and read what I wrote.  The statement "homosexuality |> spreads AIDS" is not made false by the fact that there are other |> methods of spreading it as well. |>  |> # about what you are talking about, you would be dangerous.  As it is right now, |> # you are a persistent boil on the skin of humanity that needs to be lanced. |> #  |> # Joe Cipale |>  |> Typical homosexual response. |>  |>    You have yet to answer any or all of my questions and challenges to your  statements.  By this am I to assume that you are unable to do so?  Or just plain unwilling due to your lack of proof/intelligence?  So what next?  I  prove you wrong so you just put me in your killfile?  Your lack of reasoned response seems to be a typical Clayton response.   |> --  |> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine! |> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
In article <C5HIu1.8A9@spss.com> gregotts@spss.com (Greg Otts) writes: >In article <C5HCrw.Dn3@junior.BinTec.DE> muftix@junior.BinTec.DE (Juergen Ernst Guenther) writes: >> >>I never understood why Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians etc. accusing >>US. people for imperialism though think of them as "The Americans". >> >>Not few Europeans think of you all as Americans (and of the US. as >>a bunch of blasphemeous trash that GOD has to extinguish sooner or later ...;)  >> >> .m. > >It would not be surprising that a continent that produced fascism, communism,  >and two world wars might have quite a few people who tend to think of other >people as trash that should be extinguished sooner or later.  I seem to  >remember a gut called  Hitler who felt the same way. One wonders what would be >the fate of Europe if God had extinguished this nation of blasphemeous trash >before 1917. (Not that I believe in gods.)  How many millions of people through- >out the world would have to die because no force could stop the insane, bloody >European imperialism? Thankfully the "imperialistic" US helped put an end to  >these games so that the rest of the world can sleep alittle more safely. Thus, I  >could care less what "not few Europeans" think so long as they can't do anything  >about it. > >  - Greg Otts > >These opinions are entirely my own. >  But remember that had God extinguished the blasphemous trash of Europe (and Imperialism with it), the United States would not exist today to put an end to those "games"....begs the question, which came first, the chicken or the egg???
In article <C5HFr2.CpA@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes: > >So you feel that the defendents should have been convicted regardless of the >evidence. Now that would truely be a sad day for civil rights.  I don't know about everybody else, but to me, they should have been convicted BECAUSE of the evidence, which in my mind was quite sufficient.
In article <1993Apr20.145735.27235@cs.nott.ac.uk> eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes: >In article <F3ZB3B1w165w@codewks.nacjack.gen.nz>, system@codewks.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall) writes: >|>  >|> Hmmm, what statistics are these? Can you offer any references. The only >|> studies I've seen indicate a higher proportion of homosexuals in prison >|> than in the general population, but I don't think that allows for the >|> "default" you refer to. Prison is not a normal situation... >|>  >|> But I haven't seen anything that suggests that the "default" proportion is >|> lower than in the general population (although it seems plausible). >|>  >|> Anyway, as I say, can you provide any references? >|>  >|>  > >Is this an arguement against or for?  Or simply a statement of agreeance/ >disagreeance.  The fact that there are more homosexuals in prison does not >mean that homosexuals are immoral and more liable to commit crime.  And one >must remember that prison is not necessarily a reflection of the type of >people who are criminals.  What are the statistics for unsolved crime?  There is also the question of cause and effect. Lock a mostly straight guy up for 10 years with only guys, ask ten years later if he has ever had sex with a guy. Closing your eyes and pretending its a girl sucking you still counts as sex with a guy on the survey....
In <C50sJG.3Eu@voder.nsc.com> matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043) writes:  >In article 164633 in talk.politics.misc, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:  >>>>And Ms. Regard, please don't give us the trite "you can't legislate  >>>>morality" nonsense again: there is little else that is legislated,  >>>>including the moral concept of "rights".  >>Really? Pure Socialism had this belief, and fell flat on its ass by >>attempting to follow such reasoning. Suppose you pass a law that >>states that I must love my neighbour, regardless of race, religion, >>etc. How exactly do you plan to enforce such a law? Better yet, how >>do you plan to measure compliance? And even if you overcome those >>two obstacles, how will you ever know if I have become *more moral* >>or not?  >You either missed the point or are being somewhat disingenuous;  I have >never heard anyone suggest that you can legislate what people think. >Laws are based on either expediency (i.e. traffic laws) or morality (i.e. >human rights), as far as I can tell, and the majority are based on the >latter.  Once more around the racetrack. See the original statement that it is nonsense to believe that you cannot legislate morality. I simply stated that they can pass all the laws they want but not a single one of them will make you or I more moral people. They may make us act in a moral manner, but our actions are only a reflection of the unwillingness to risk punishment. They say nothing about whether we have become more moral or not. Perhaps the distinction is too fine.    >Matt Freivald  TOG
In article <15436@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:  |> If you don't care, why was so much effort put into promoting the |> 10% lie?  Because it was important to scare politicians into |> obedience. |>   Perhaps you should change your name to Clayton "Mr Logic(NOT!)" Cramer! Please give evidence of the above statement or shut up.  I believe that I may have answered that elsewhere, amongst your other ravings.   |> --  |> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine! |> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
In article <2671@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes: > shapiro@sofbas.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes: > :  > : Oh, and BTW, its William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. > :  > : Regards, > : Steve. >  >  > No, it's not- and I really fail to understand the use of that name > as an insult.  Do you feel that being adopted implies some sort of > moral failing?  Yes, it is -- you could look it up.  And spare us the thin-skinned indignation, please; what's sauce for four years of using George Herbert Walker Bush and J. Danforth Quayle as an insult is sauce for William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.  Do you feel that calling a President by his full  name implies some sort of disrespect?  Hint: this is a rhetorical question.  ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------   Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)
In article <VEAL.755.735336029@utkvm1.utk.edu>, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:  |>In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:  |>>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.  Presumably the B-D did not mount a continuous state of alert with gunmen ready to fire on people who casually walked up to ring the doorbell.  Once inside the building the BATF would have been in control. Trained police officers are a match to any bunch of Bozos playing at soldiers.   |>>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.  Not a smart move. Unless meant to be part of the surprize cover. Even so the narrow opening of the trucks simply was not a good idea. A side opening truck would have been much better, more like a covered waggon.   |>        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?  Sounds just about right to me. Its the minimum amount of force that I would consider necessary to serve a warrant on the talk.politics.guns annual dinner.  Michael Hesseltine ordered the use of over 5000 crack troops including members of the parachute regiment to remove approx 250 hippy peace protestors on a site where they wanted to install cruise missiles. He even turned up in a flack jacket to monitor the proceedings. Just about the most dangerous tool the women possesed was a tin opener. That single action probably cost him the position as Prime Minister. One of the elders of my church got arrested in that heroic action by the forces of Toryism. Hesseltine ever after was something of a national joke.
In article <16BB7A1DE.V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes) 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. >  >Richard  That people are at risk and that some die during a hostage situation might be considered an acceptable scenario in storming a compound.   When EVERYONE dies (save for nine people), including twenty children, the  outcome must be considered a failure.  Now was the failure due to unforseeable circumstances, incompetence, or negligence?  From the double talk and multiple stories I've seen on the news coming from the FBI and Reno I find "it was an honest mistake" hard to swallow  Let's hope they get their stories straight for the second round of questions.
In article <1993Apr21.090638.6253@titan.ksc.nasa.gov> rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin) writes: >In article <DZVB3B6w164w@cellar.org>, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) says: >>  >The Earth may spew alot of substances into the atmosphere, but the quality  >of your toxic output can easily make up for the lack of quantity.  	Excuse me? Quality? As in grade A CO2 and grade B CO2? I may not have this quite right but I was under the impression that CO2 was CO2.   Furthermore,  >the planet is a system of carbon, sulfur and other chemicals which have been >acting for billions of years, we are but newcomers to the system - we must adapt >and control in order to bring about stability.  Also, two wrongs do not make a right,  >so continuing our practices despite overwhelming data is just ignorance in (non)action.  	A) There is no reason to believe this system is inherently stable-  The Ice ages occured without any help from humans.  	B) The point was that the human contribution of CO2 and other  greenhouse gasses is insignificant and it won't really make a difference if we make more or less.  	C) What overwhelming data? I see lots of 'projections' of the future, which is fascinating, considering they can't predict the weather two weeks in advance.