waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In <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.  But it IS made false by your ridiculous leap of logic from "monogamous homosexual male sex is so rare" (which is a load of horseshit--as proportionately many queers are monogamous as hets, and the ones who aren't use condoms, for the most part) to "for practical purposes, homosexuality spreads AIDS."  No.  Unprotected sex with an infected partner spreads AIDS.  These "practical purposes" you speak of are obviously the purposes of spreading homophobia, which leads me to an interesting truth: "Cramer spreads hate."  Isn't that nice?  ># 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 mean, "Typical homosexual response to Clayton E. Cramer."  I think any human being would react that way to someone as contemptibly hateful as you, actually.  I seem to hear the same sort of thing coming from your posts, you know....  >--  >Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine! >Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Planning to make this a complete sentence anytime soon?  Drewcifer
In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.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.   --  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
In article <1993Apr22.120854.8871@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) says: > >In article <16BB713D1E.PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU>, PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU >(David >Veal) writes: >... >>        Here's a question for those of you far more informed about >> health care than I am.  My Almanac, quoting OECD Health Data >> lists U.S. Public Health Expenditures for 1990 as being 5.2% of >> GDP, or 42.4% of total health expenditures. >> >>        Are we *really* paying 42.4% of our expenditures to insure >> 21% of our population? > >        Heh, no doubt more "evidence" that the government is more efficient >than 'evil' for profit health care.  Proving once again that Brett has a major thinking problem...  Two groups that the government insure are the elderly and the "medically an needy" (those who have impoverished themselves through spending for medical care).  The typical elderly person spends 3.5 times what a person under age 65.  The typical medically needy person spends about 10 times what the average person does.  You've got to adjust those data, Brett.
In article <CB.93Apr5130728@tamarack13.timbuk>, cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes: > Craig Depken writes: >  >     The fact that the South had a number of slave owners is true, but >     relatively small numbers (around 1200) had more than a few hundred slaves. >     (I have to get references that I do not have here for  >     exact numbers.) >  > If it has any bearing on this discussion, I saw a figure for the total > number of slave-owners as 300,000.  Does anyone have a figure for how > many slaves there were?  How many farmers without slaves? >  > Chris Brewster                            E-MAIL ADDRESS: cb@cray.com  In 1860:  region              total population  free blacks  %       slaves   % U.S.                32,227,616        487,070      1.5%    3,953,818 12.3% Confederacy          9,103,332        132,760      1.5%    3,521,110 38.7% Union Slave States   3,212,041        128,158      4.0%      432,586 13.5% All Union States    23,124,284        354,310      1.5%      432,708  1.9% Union "Free" States 19,912,243        226,152      1.1%          122  0.0%
In article <C5sCqI.4By@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:    In article <bskendigC5rCBG.Azp@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:     >They used a tank to knock a hole in the wall, and they released    >non-toxic, non-flammable tear gas into the building.         Non-toxic tear gas?!?  Do you know what tear gas is?         I do: once upon a time I happened to be in a room when someone threw         a tear-gas grenade in (that was supposed to be a joke:).  The sensation         was incredible: I felt my eyes and nostrils were being torn apart.        I remember us - a bunch of young men in our early 20's - running out        like a herd of wild animals, knocking down the door and jumping        out of the windows (thank G-d we were on the first floor).         I can't imagine this kind of stuff being used against children.  For them, the worst effect might not be the physical effects so much as the psychological effect of being incapacitated without fully understanding the cause.  Many years ago, I was accidentally exposed to a tiny dose of tear gas.  (It was in Athens, on the street leading to the American Embassy; there'd been a march that had been broken up with tear-gas; I must have stumbled into a remaining patch of gas the next day.)  Aside from the tears, feeling sick to my stomach, etc., the really horrible psychological effect was that of suddenly falling to pieces and not knowing why it had happened---I was horrified and wondered what disease or other health problem I had.  (I didn't find out about the march and the tear-gas till hours later.)  I can imagine how horribly disorienting this might be to very young children: suddenly crying uncontrollably and feeling sick, weak, and out of control of your body---and not knowing the cause.  ``This gives us a chance to try the Gas of Peace.''  Yeah, right.
In article <1993Apr15.162802.20933@hydra.acs.ttu.edu> mcgoy@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu (David McGaughey) writes: > >The question, I think, then becomes:  Do we, the general public, need the train? > >I certainly do not, nor will I ever, need this train in Lubbock, Texas.  With >the inexpensive air travel provided between Dallas and Houston, I don't think >people in Dallas or Houston need it either.  I totally agree.  Really, the only people this is going to benefit, are those who live in the cities where the train stops.  Who wants to drive to the train station from X (Lubbock for example)?  It's probably farther to drive to the train station than it is to the nearest national airport.
In article <15442@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:  |> The Walz monster above, however, was past 40 when he molested these |> kids, as he says above.   Hehehe!  Dontcha just love these carefully constructed arguements?  Clayton, babe, please define the word `molest`.  Are you using a legal term or a proper dictionary term?  Molest, as far as I can remember, means `to do damage to person(s)`.  My mate, Mike, was lured into a woman's parlour when he was 14.  Is that molestation?  A number of my friends (straight) lost their virginity before that.  Were they 'molested'?  They told me that they thoroughly enjoyed the experience.  I see no damage.    Please stop pushing your objective morality on others.  If you push, people won't fall over and say 'Ye gads, you're right!', they'll just push back.  Have you signed up for that logic course yet?  |> --  |> 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 <1993Apr5.233224.10069@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) says: > >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! >-- >The worms crawl in >The worms crawl out >The worms post to the net from your account  Insofar as several "liberal" jurisdictions are concerned, the essential elements of rape are gender neutral. Nonetheless, I decided to provide a number of references to support my original argument. Black's Law Dictionary (every law student/lawyer's friend) defines rape as: Unlawful sexual intercourse with a female without her consent. The unlawful knowledge of a woman by a man forcibly and against her will. The Model Penal Code (the statute proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws or other organization for adoption by state legislatures) defines rape as: A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape if he (a) compels her to submit by force or by threat of imminent death.... (MPC @213.1(1)(a))  Indeed the following jurisdictions/states have statutes similar to the MPC:  Alabama-- Code of Ala. @13A-6-61 (1992) Arkansas--Ark.Stat.Ann. @5-14-103 (1993) District of Columbia--D.C. Code @22-2801 (1992) Georgia--O.F.G.A. @16-6-1 (1992) Idaho--Idaho Code @18-6101 (1992) Maryland--Md.Ann.Code.Art. 27 @462 (1992) Mississippi--Miss.Code Ann. @97-3-71 (1993) New York (check case law)--N.Y.C.L.S. Penal @130.35 (1993) North Carolina--N.C. Gen.Stat. @14-27-2 (1992) Puerto Rico--L.P.R.A. @4062 (1993)  Ta,
In article <1993Apr13.210503.11099@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (THE SKY ALREADY FELL. NOW WHAT?) writes: >I didn't see your post so I can't comment on it. My $.02 on high >speed rail is, I like it. I like it alot. It would be too bad to >see it tainted by corruption. that's all.  The speed limit on commuter tracks in the northeast is 120MPH.  We already have something that resembles high speed rail in this country and it requires massive government subsidies.  We don't need another government boondoggle.
From article <1qvampINNmhf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, by stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU:  > Mr Cramer-  > You are on one hand condemning the news media as;  > "The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions" that > was your message subject I believe.  > Then you turn around and actually take; From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, > April 15, 1993, p. B2:   > Male sex survey: Gay activity low title.  > You even use such a title for the San Jose Mercury News- the Murky News.  > Now which is it?  Are you going to comdemn national media, then turn around > and use it to support some position you present?  Seems somewhat contradictory > doesn't it.  I believe that this is not contradictory on the basis that the quality of media reporting varies greatly based on the subject at hand.  The media has proven itself very accurate is the areas of presenting raw, undisputed data.  One good example would be the weather page in which high and low temperatures of the previous day for a large number of locations are posting.  There is little evidence to show that they are in error.  The American media has failed us in its analysis of complex events, however.  I'm sure that we can come up with many news stories that have left us angry because so many facts have been ommitted.  Cases that come to mind are the invasion of Panama, the war with Iraq, the disaster in Waco, the issues surrounding the acceptance of gays into the military, the war on drugs, and many others.  The story that you bring to light was regarding the new sex survey.  While I'm sure that due to lazyness some of the data was ommitted from the article, I would venture to guess that the data that was presented did not deviate from the survey.  I do, however, think that it would be folly to have blind faith in a single newswriter's analysis of this data.  In this particular case, there was little analysis, and the reader was left to draw his/her own convictions.  Many netters, Mr. Cramer included, often forget that the American media are merely a number of businesses, who's purpose in life is to make money for their owners and stockholders.  Revenues come largely from advertisers who merely want maximum useful exposure per dollar.  The media is like fast food; the quality of the food (or of the reporting) will improve only if the customers demand as such.  Otherwise, it is business as usual.
In article <1993Apr19.132847.23755@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes: >Authorities are saying that Branch Davidian members were >seen starting the fire.  It looks like there will no >witnesses to dispute that claim.  The FBI says that some of the survivors claim to have seen the leaders of the cult talking about setting a fire, and to have smelt kerosene. I assume this will come out at any trial that occurs as a result of these events.
In <1993Apr2.182942.22445@husc3.harvard.edu> spanagel@husc11.harvard.edu (David Spanagel) writes:  |Recently it's occured to me that I've never heard of any PERSON ever being |tried in Federal Court for violating someone's civil rights. Of course |there have been cases before the Supreme Court in which it was decided |that someone's civil rights had been violated (e.g., Miranda, Escobedo, |etc.), but institutions were, de facto, the defendants, not individuals. Am I |mistaken? Have there been similar cases against individuals in the past?   I know it was used several times in the south, to prosecute the murders of blacks, after all white juries had cleared the accussed.  |Furthermore, what are the specific charges against the four LAPD officers?  |Which civil rights or laws are they accused of violating?   I believe it is a general charge, that is no specific right is mentioned.  |What about double jeopardy? Has there been any concern that a verdict |against Koon, et al. might be overturned upon appeal because they're being tried |again for the same actions? (I thought I heard something on the news about  |this.)  The SS has previously ruled that since the seperate governments were in essence seperate sovereigns, then double jeopardy does not apply.  (If this is true, then could defendents also be tried under city and county governments?)  This mornings paper said that the ACLU has decided to reinstate its opposition to this kind of thing. They had earlier suspended their opposition while they examined the King case. There might be hope for the ACLU after all.
In article <lsm2fjINNlnf@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes: > >> In article <15230@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: # ## #I remain pro-choice, but when pro-choicers compare abortion in a # ## #clinic to a religious ritual in a church, you have to start wondering # ## #a bit if the pro-life criticism of abortion as modern human sacrifice # ## #doesn't have a grain of truth to it. #  # #In article <ls8ruoINN54b@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM#, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes: # ##  # ## Ah, Clayton, so I see that you have found someone new to bash.  Tell # ## me, how many pro-choicers have compared abortion in a clinic to a # ## religious ritual in a church?  I'll bet that you've seen "overwhelming # ## support" for this opinion in some newsgroup or another. #  # In article <15313@optilink.COM# cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: # #No, but I've seen the comparison drawn by pro-choicers in ca.politics. # #It is worrisome to me.  But not to you? #  # 1. I've been reading ca.politics for a while now, and I don't recall #    seeing such a comparison.  You don't read *my* postings very carefully; I'm not surprised.  It was pretty shocking, and is part of why my sympathy (though not agreement) with the pro-lifers is increasing.  # 2. A handful of lunatic opinions expressed in ca.politics does not #    make me think that the opinion is widely held.  When did I say that it was?  # Clayton, I wish I knew what made you tick.  Your math sucks, and you # take single instances of fringe opinions and proclaim the existence of # a pernicious trend.  There's about a quarter billion people living in # this country -- some small number of them are almost guaranteed to # hold opinions that you (and I) find positively repellent.  As long as # the small number is truly a small number, and as long as they're not # my neighbor (highly likely), I'm not worried about it.  When they hold high public office, you should worry.  # By the way, when you cite experts, remember that Carl Sagan and Paul # Ehrlich [sp?] are experts, too.  If I've never heard of your experts, # I'll consider the source (you, a man who is clearly unable to master # elementary statistics and uses of statistical inference) and ignore # them. #  # David Chase  You mean, I don't come to the conclusions that your emotional state requires.
Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans    10. Institute a national sales tax to pay for the socialization of     America's health care resources.  9.  Declare war on Serbia. Reenact the draft.  8.  Stimulate the economy with massive income transfers to Democtratic     constituencies.  7.  Appoint an unrepetent socialist like Mario Cuomo to the Suprmeme Court.  6.  Focus like a laser beam on gays in the military.  5.  Put Hillary in charge of the Ministry of Truth and move Stephanopoulos     over to socialzed health care.  4.  Balance the budget through confiscatory taxation.  3.  Remind everyone, again, how despite the Democrats holding the     Presidency, the majority of seats in the House, and in the Senate,     the Republicans have still managed to block his tax-and-spend programs.  2.  Go back to England and get a refresher course in European Socialism.  1.  Resign, now!    Copyright (c) Edward A. Ipser, Jr., 1993
Dov Bai-MSI Visitor (bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu) wrote: : In article <C5FG7t.6At@exnet.co.uk> sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:  : >True, man did not invent the need for food, shelter, warmth and the ilk, : >but man did invent the property laws and the laws of trespass.    : But how do you think property is generated ? Does it grow automatically : on trees when we wish so, or someone has to produce it ?  Some say it was generated by God or Goddess; some say it was the result of the coalescence of billions of tons of interstellar debris.  In either case, the property of which Xavier speaks has been around for millions of years.   :     It all follows from the fact that Mother Nature does not : provide us automatically with our needs,  Oh?  When did She *stop*?  Mother Nature has been automatically providing us with her bounty ever since we crawled out of the primordial ooze.  It is not "produced": it produces itself, year after year.  Last night, for example, I saw four deer crossing the road (pretty sight, too); in an earlier time, one of them would have been dinner.  : There are 2 ways to go with produced things: the first is to  : _trade_ it with the the person(s) who produced it.  : The other one is to take it with a gun from the person who produced : it. The first way is the civilized method, the second is how savages : arrange their affairs.  The American Indians had no concept of ownership of property, and often freely gave of their supplies to neighboring tribes, trading food and clothing for weapons or services.  The Native Hawaiians, like their Polynesian ancestors, also could not conceive of that idea, and shared many things with the other Islanders.  In fact, "hi'ipoi", the Hawaiian word for "cherish" means "sharing food".  The Great Mahele, in which the Islands were divided up more-or-less evenly between the rich and the poor, was a white man's idea.  In Africa, villagers will often share tools, crops, and clothing with other members of their own village and neighboring villages.  Every anthropologist who has ever been to Africa has at least one tale of the difficulties arising from the so- called "theft" of the scientists possessions -- two concepts of which, until the visitors came along, the natives had no understanding.  These are the people we call "savages".  On the other hand, car-jackings and muggings are up from last year.  Dov, before you make further comment on this thread, I think it would behoove you to study *all* of the facts.
an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes: >>Aside from the fact that i disagree w/ you, she did offer to resign and the >>president rejected the offer.  She was willing to take responsibility, and >>the president has the balls enough to stand by a decision. > > >       Or the contempt to ignore it.  Yup, that was quite contemptuous of the President to make a decision that 12% disagree with...
In article <1993Apr14.231117.21872@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes: >In article <philC5Ht1t.GwA@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)                   writes... >>Along with normalized relations with the PRC. > >"Normalizing relations" with Cambodia? You must be joking. We sponsored >the OVERTHROW of the Cambodian government. After repeated failed attempts >of course.   PRC = People's Republic of China != Cambodia.  Go play.
In article <1993Apr17.022222.28105@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (BLORT! eeeep! Hwaaah.) writes: # 	Actually, I was rather surprised to see an article on this subject # (i.e. the "new, inproved" survey saying that roughly 1% of men are gay) # on the front page of The New York _Times_ recently (I think it was # on Thurs, 15 April).  The headline was something to the effect of  # "New Survey Finds 1% of Men Are Gay" #  # 	I was shocked, not because the New York _Times_ was running a story # on a sex survey (although that was part of it), but because they thought # that this news was actually important enough to warrant front page space. # I mean, how many people actually CARE how many people are gay (as long as # you know how to find/avoid them if you want to)?  I don't.    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.  # 							-Matt