waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <15413@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:  >What they broke in the DNC for is still open to serious question.  Some tape archivists suggest what they were after had something to do with the Kennedy assasination. Let's hear all of the tapes real soon, shall we?
In article <rlglendeC5tBuF.2oC@netcom.com> rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning) writes: >Has anybody heard an explanation of why the FBI was using tear gas >in a 35 mph wind?      First, a tank drove through the wall into the living room.      I can't stop thinking about the children who were inside     the house (the room?) at the time.      How many people got killed during the Tiannamen Square events?  > >Doesn't seem like vry good tactics to me ... > >Any other explanations? > >Lew >--  >Lew Glendenning		rlglende@netcom.com >"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points."	Niels Bohr (or somebody like that).   --  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >Unless, of course, the problem is that homosexuality is a form >of mental disorder, caused by childhood sexual abuse, as a number of >recent works suggest.  Which number is that?  Zero?  Please present "a number" of authoritative works which "suggest" that "homosexuality is a form of mental disorder, caused by childhood sexual abuse."  Don't present your own biased conclusions, based on a collage of tidbits you've extracted from a few hours' research, as the conclusions of people who study mental disease and sexual abuse professionally.
I'd like to conduct a small survey relating to Americans' views on economics and on Japan. The survey consists of just two questions.  I ask that only Americans respond; I've posted it worldwide, however, because I think others will be interested in the results.  I'll tabulate the results and post them with some commentary.  Please respond by email to "borden@m5.harvard.edu".  Here are the questions:  1) As an American, would you prefer that in a given year, a) our economy grows by one    percent, and Japan's economy also grows by one percent, or b) our economy grows by    two percent while Japan's economy grows by three percent?  2) On what newsgroup did you read this survey?  Thank you for your participation.
In article <C5t41s.8nz@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes: >In article <15427@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> >>In article <C5K5LC.CyF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence 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 politicians will have plenty to be scared of in one week be it 1% or >90%. > >># 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... >> >>But many of the people who will be marching aren't homosexuals, but >>other members of the leftist agenda. > >I'm sure there will be a few non queers, but the vast majority are >queer.  I find it very interesting that you say there will be 2.5 million queers in the march on Washington.  The largest figure I've seen in the press is 1 million and we all know how liberal the press is with their numbers. :)  For another thing, 1% of 250 million is 2.5 million not 6.  Maybe that's where you got the 2.5 million number.  Also, the number cited in the actual report is 1.5% so that would be about 3.75 million.  As for this march on Washington, I wonder how much the media is going to inflate the numbers this time.  Last time, for the pro-abortion rally, they more than doubled the actual number of people who showed up.  That and all the stories coming out of how the press "slants" the news really makes one wonder who's watching the watchers.  BCNU.
In article <C5wA0D.IvA@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes: > In article <Apr.22.06.39.15.1993.27912@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes: > >In article <1993Apr21.222523.21713@news.cs.indiana.edu> 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. #  # So it has nothing to do with your morals, its just that you wouldn't # have anything to wack off to if you didn't have tapes of Lesbians # going at it.... #  # I think we are getting closer to the truth now.  No, we are getting at Mr. Foard's sickness.  This may surprise homosexuals, but lots of people in this country do NOT spend their time watching pornography and masturbating.  Some of us have  real lives, instead of sexual compulsions.  But I don't expect a homosexual to understand that.
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 SocSec taxes, which were *raised* a considerable amount, at the same time that income taxes were cut.  If you look at income tax revenue alone, it fell after after the cuts began, and didn't recover for several years. By then, record deficits were well entrenched. >  > Chew on that awhile.  *crunch, crunch*
In article <2680@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes: -> : 	According to a ``CNN Poll'' to key reason for Clinton's low -> : approval rating is people are angry about him not moving fast enough -> : on gays in the military.  I just burst out laughing when I heard this; -> : what planet do these CNN people live on anyway? -> : -- -> : Jason C. Austin -> : j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov        ->  -> Dunno, man... that sounds pretty damned unlikely to me, too, -> although it's certainly one of the reasons I'm pissed off at him. -> Maybe the sample was taken entirely from my fellow memebers of the -> Cultural Elite? ->  -> Jason, can you quote some of these poll questions? ->  -> Thanks, -> Bill -> v  	I've never seen CNN give out the poll questions on the air. If you sent them a letter asking for them, you might get them.  Here's my guess of how part of a session might look:  Question: Do you approve of Clinton's performance? Answer: No Questions: Do you disapprove due to the gays in the military issue? Answer: Yes  Conclusion: Clinton has a low approval rating because he's not moving fast enough on gays in the military.   	I think any group truly dedicated to reporting the news would not use manufactured news like polls.
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?  lightly off track, but still relevant: why all the crying over the children?  I know we are hardwired to consider the future of the race, and comapssionate people are concerned for all children; but so what?  For the Branch Davidians, the options were to die or submit to Evil[tm] - and have their children's very souls lost due to the brain washing of the Ungodly State.  (to put this in terms the 'average' netter might 	grasp: they considered it the equivalent of putting 	Jesse Helms in charge of NEA _and_ MTV.)  And remembering that in 1983 the Supreme Court Struck Down Freedom of Conscience (IRS vs Bob Jones et al.):  Who's next?  Is your religion / belief system Government Approved?  Jim JOnes had won numerous awards from the state before he moved to Guiana?  Obviously state regulation would have stopped that tragedy too.   chus pyotr  p.s. The Mormons weren't always Saints, but they did go a long way to be left alone. Always a ThoughtCrime in any ProperState.
In article <1993Apr5.005204.29158@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes: >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes: >>In article <1993Apr2.155820.16998@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes: >>> >>>The SC allows restrictions after 'viability' (a term never medically defined)  >>                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >>Any physician who can't make a reasonable stab at determining whether a given >>fetus is viable or not is not qualified to perform an abortion.  > >Kebbin shows that he does not know the difference between determining >the viability of an *individual* fetus, and providing the "universally >accepted medical definition[s] of viability"   I was not discussing "universal" definitions in this post, Mark. Please refrain from dragging in irrelevancies.  Do you agree with my statement above about physicians being unqualified if they can't determine viability?  >>Since we know >>that there are SOME physicians out there who are qualified to perform  >>abortions, then obviously SOME medical definition of "viability" is being  >>employed.  > >On an case by case basis, viability is relatively easy to determine.  And that's good enough for the law, Mark. So why do you keep whining that viability "isn't defined"? What purpose does your whining serve?
In article <1993Apr2.055109.5833@rigel.econ.uga.edu>, depken@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Craig Depken) writes: > In article <1993Mar31.224355.21442@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: # #The argument that "slavery was a dying institution" was often made by # 						     ^^^ # 						     (IS) #  # #historians, mainly Southerners, who sought to divert attention from the  # #institution as the central issue of the Civil War.  In fact, however, # #the argument is specious, at best.  More recent scholarship from the  # #last 20-30 years demonstrates rather conclusively that the cotton/sugar/ # #tobacco economy and its reliance on slavery was increasingly dominant in  # #the South prior to the Civil War. #  # This is because the South did not receive the massive momentum of capital #  intensive growth that the Northern states did. Compare the Northern #  agricultural system with the Southern and you will see a major difference  #  in the capital to labor intensity.  Capital and labor are one and the same in a slave economy.  Except that capital doesn't reproduce quite as readily as slaves did.  Slavery was a dying institution before the cotton gin, yes, but not in 1850.  # #It is true that cotton suffered from price depression in the 1840's - # #the period used to claim that slavery would not have lasted in the  # #South.   #  # That is not the argument that I have heard. It would not have lasted because #  the growth in the North would not have been sustained for much longer without #  spilling over to the Southern states, i.e. Northern industry would have  #  migrated capital to the Southern states, and with that would have come  #  immigrant labor to the ports of the South, e.g. Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, #  New Orleans, etc. This would have put the breaks on the slave market and #  slavery would have been out-moded by the capital intensity of competing  #  agriculturalists. Those that insisted on keeping slaves because of their #  "Cruel Hearts and Hatred for Black People" would have been driven out of #  business. Simple capital to labor ratio...read Michael Parkin _Microeconomics_ #  2nd edition, and any other basic economics book.  This assumes that the slave holder dominance over state governments would not have caused the passage of laws to keep out capital from the North.  Since slave holders were prepared to do almost anything else to destroy free markets in order to maintain slavery, I do not doubt that they would have passed laws to cripple any serious competitive threat.  Thomas Sowell's _Market and Minorities_ argues that the maintenance of slavery, and the costs it imposed on state and local governments, discouraged not only capital formation, but also outside capital investment in the Southern states.  # 	Craig A. Depken, II
In article <1qvb5aINNmoi@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU writes:  >> From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:  >>    Male sex survey: Gay activity low  > Note this contradictory title-  Gay Activity Low.  Vocabulary test: Please define the following words:     a) contradictory    b) ambiguous
--- 51 Arrested for Defying Judge's Order at Abortion Protest Rally The Miami Herald, April 11, 1993     Melbourne, Florida --   [...]     Circuit Judge Robert McGregor's order prohibits anti-abortion pickets    within 36 feet of the property line of Aware Woman Center for Choice.    Even across the street, they may not display pictures of dead fetuses    or sing or chant loud enough to be heard by patients inside the clinic.     The protesters say the ruling all but wiped out the First Amendment    to the Constitution.     ``This is our sidewalk,'' said Joe Carroll, 33, a landscaper who    marched with his children, Mary Grace, 8, and John, 7.     ``I am not a rescuer.  I am not a trespasser.  It's just that this is    my sidewalk.  I am not really protesting abortion.  We are protesting    denial of our rights of assembly, religion, speech.  This judge is    trashing the Constitution.''     The children's grandmother led them away, sobbing, as Carroll and    his father were arrested.     Outside the clinic, Eleanor Smeal, president of the Washington,    D.C.-based Feminist Majority Foundation, called for the Florida    Legislature and Congress to pass laws as tough as the judge's    order, which covers only Brevard and Seminole counties.     ``This cannot go on,'' she said.  ``This is not freedom of speech,    this is total psychological warfare with violence.  It is ridiculous    to have to ask clinics to go court-by-court . . . to get protection.''     [...]
In article <1993Apr15.162552.5510@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes: >In article <1qjtmjINNq45@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes: >> 	I have come to the conclusion that the TV stations here in LA >> 	WANT a riot to happen when the verdict comes in. > >   Why is this surprising? Then the _Times_ can get a few more >Pulitzers the same way they did last year.  	I suppose ALL media want something to happen, otherwise what would 	they report: that's their job. (duhhh to me!)  	But it's not so much surprising that they want a riot as it is amazing 	how they carry that desire across in not so subtle ways (at least to 	me...)  carlos.
In a previous article, garrett@Ingres.COM (GREP A FRIEND) says:  >In article <1qt61e$d7e@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (B writes... >>        Went to the Post Office on Friday, got my passport apps in. >>        My savings have already been converted. >>  >Bye.         Gosh.  Does this mean I'm not invited to the next       White House "barbecue" ?
In article <C4zA0H.IHD@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com writes: >In article 1pamhpINN7d3@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu, taite@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu () writes: >>I'm prepared to instruct individuals in the proper use and  >>handling of firearms.    >>As a Desert Storm vet with six years in the National Guard, I have a >>great deal of experience in handling weapons and tactical training.    >ps: anyone up for a discussion of counter sniper operations? >Security drills, Your Friend the Counter Terrorist Operation.....
In a previous article, pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) says:  > >The Military's mission is to kill the enemy before >they can escape or surrender.       Yes, so?  You still haven't explained why they      can't be used to enforce Civil Law.  They certainly     would have done a better job of Koresh.  Just call     in an air strike.
In article <mortalC4wxLn.8s2@netcom.com>, mortal@netcom.com (Sam Lowry) writes: > In article <15033@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >In article <1993Mar19.142816.15709@rational.com>, kima@excalibur.Rational.com (Kim Althoff) writes: > >> In article <14992@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: # ## # Gay men constitute at least 20% of all child molestations.  Whether # ## # this is because gay molesters are unusually common, or have unusually # ## # high numbers of victims, sort of misses the point, doesn't it?  It # ## # means that whichever is the case, homosexual men are remarkably # ## # hazardous to children. # # # Clayton says: # # # #You are incorrect.  The most recent survey data I can find shows that # #26% of molestation is exclusively homosexuals, 4% is bisexual (victims # #are both male and female), and the remainder is exclusively heterosexual.  #     So what you are saying is that 74% of the child molestations are  #   committed by heterosexuals. I cannot see the correlation you cite  Bisexuals are heterosexuals?  Since when?  #   which concludes that by being homosexual, you will molest children or that #   by being homosexual you will have the propensity for molesting children.  I haven't said that "homosexual = child molester," simply that is more likely.  #   If 26% of the molestations are by homosexuals, why are you so concerned #   about creating a relation between the two? If you had evidence that  #   95% of the molestations are committed by homosexuals you might find a  #   relationship. Ok, where is the realtionship you make?          The one that is shown when NAMBLA marches in gay parades.  #     Also, what is the reason people molest? From Human Sexuality and a  #   psych class or too I have taken the overwhelming voice says that people #   commit these acts as power trips and to feel in control. This has nothing #   to do with sexual orientation.   You mean that S&M, because it's a power trip, has nothing to do with sexual orientation?  #   mortal@netcom.com
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? I'd say that about says it all... back to the pit with ye, back to alt.fan. dan-quayle!  Begone!  ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------   Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)
In article <C513wJ.75y@encore.com> rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins) writes: >... >I ask myself, what law could we pass to prevent government from doing >stupid, frivilous things with OUR money?  Then I think, the Constitution >was supposed to do that.  Could someone please tell me what legitimate >constitutional power the federal government is using when it takes money >from my paycheck and gives it to needy countries?  Seriously. > >Roger Collins >  Since you asked, Article I Section 1.  Article I Section 8.  Article I  Section 10.  Article II Section 2.  Article VI.  Sixteenth Amendment.  With this as a guide, try reading it yourself.  jsh
A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not from the fire.  	Thoughts?  	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led to the previous ruling appear.  	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed?  Shouldn't that be up to a jury?  	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?  Shouldn't that be enough for a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial?  	Whatever happened to jurors having to be objective?
In <1993Apr20.124358.22881@cs.nott.ac.uk> eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes:  |In article <15430@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:  ||> 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.  |Your post is based on the premise that the laws as they stand do not |discriminate anybody, so your argument falls over immediately.  Are you  Why not try to eliminate discrimination from existing laws instead of trying to add discrimination that favors your group.
In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes: >The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the >Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.  <more tripe deleted>  Phill, are you trying to convince everyone on the net that you are in fact an abject moron for some reason? Repeating the same rubbish over and over again may make something a  "fact" in whatever backwater you are posting from, but it doesn't wash here, so save it.
In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writ es: >In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.a cs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes: >>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR .C >>OM (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. >> >>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to >>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents >>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done. > >    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health >    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give >    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services >    delivered to their doorsteps. > >  Excuse me for sticking my nose in, but any parent/parents who do not allready  immunize their children (especially if it is already free), don't deserve one  frigging dime of tax money for health care for themselves, or public health  care service.  (I know the immunization program and the coming national health care issue are  slightly seperate issues, but anybody who wouldn't help their kids, don't  deserve my tax help).