waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU wrote: : The median of a distribution is that variate-value which divides the : distribution halfway, i.e. 1/2 of the distribution (population) have : lower and half have higher variate-values.  : So for Males 20-39 the median=7.3, this means that half of these men : are higher than this and half are lower than this.  Now if the population : sample size is 3300, and 1% of them are gay, 33 males are gay.  If we : say they are distributed equally then only 16.5 are greater than 7.3 : sexual partners, of course, this means that 49.5% heterosexual men are : greater than 7.3.  Not quite.  First, the median does not imply that half of the men are above and half below 7.3: it simply means that 7.3 is the mid-point between the maximum number of partners and the minimum (which is most likely zero).  However, assuming your implication to be more-or-less correct, your final result is still invalid.  If 50% of *all* males have had more than 7.3 partners, and you deduct the assumed 1% of  homosexual males, what remains is not 49.5%, but still *50%* of all *heterosexual* males.  Which is to say: hey, we're all human.
In article <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.  Koresh & some of his followers were tried and found *innocent* of all charges following that shootout.  Were you unaware of this or did you purposly leave out this fact?
In article <1993Apr5.050127.22304@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes: >In article <1993Apr4.011042.24938@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com >(Steve Hendricks) writes: >>In article <1993Apr3.211910.21908@news.acns.nwu.edu> >>dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes: >>>... >>>If someone beats up a homosexual, he should get charged for assault and >>>battery.  Why must we add gay bashing to the list?  Isn't this a sort of >>>double jeopardy?  Or am I just being a fascist again? >> >>() To deter an epidemic of "gay bashing" that has not been deterred by >>   assault laws.   > >So we ought to make beating up a homosexual more illegal than beating up a >straight?    And who's advocating that?  Hate crimes laws are aimed at the motivations of the acts.  Just like premeditated homicide is treated stricter than heat-of-passion homicide.  >>() No, it is not "double jeopardy."  A single act may lead to multiple >>   charges and multiple crimes. > >I think what you meant to say here was, "With the current mutation of the US >Constitution under the current police state, someone may be charged multiple >times for one act if the victim in question is of the right shade."  A single >act should never merit more than on charge.    So if I set off a bomb in the World Trade Center, I can only be charged with more than one murder, and not the other five deaths and extensive property damage?  After all, the bomb was a single act.  >Douglas C. Meier		|  You can't play Electro-magnetic Golf
In article <pdb059-160493111229@kilimanjaro.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes: # Mr. Cramer, I am still waiting for your response to my requests regarding # the information you claim to have.  I respectfully request that you either # provide the information or withdraw the various assertions you make below. #  # Item number 1:  in a previous posting, you stated that you had found # "overwhelming support for child molestation" in soc.motss: #  # You have (finally) responded to this one.  I have read your complete file # of postings to soc.motss and to put it bluntly, it does not support your # assertion.  In short, this claim is bogus.  Thank you for confirming this.  All those postings in defense of adults having sex with children, and you just choose to claim that they don't say anything of the sort. There's no point in discussing this any further, then.  You are clearly a liar, without morals of any sort, prepared to justify child molestation.
In article <1993Apr15.193603.14228@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes: >In article <stevethC5JGCr.1Ht@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri >tes: > >> >>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you! >> > >A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid  >is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as  >me how, I just have seen the results. > >Boy, I really wish we we cut the drug war and have more people screwed up in  >the head. >  I'll answer you're sarcasm with more sarcasm:  	Boy, it looks like the WOD is WORKING REALLY GOOD to stop people from 	being screwed up in the head, given that example!  (Issue: your friend _got_ his drugs--legal or not legal, he'll continue to get them.  Issue #2: why should _I_, as somebody who does NOT use illegal drugs and who IS NOT "screwed up" have to PAY for this idiot's problems?  He's not doing anybody any harm except himself.  The WOD, on the other hand, is an immediate THREAT to MY life and livelyhood.  Tell me why I should sacrafice THIS to THAT!).
In article <C5oG5H.4DE@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes: > In article <15409@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >In article <MJCUGLEY.93Apr14110319@glenturret.maths-and-cs.dundee.ac.uk>, mjcugley@maths-and-cs.dundee.ac.uk (Womble with Attitude) writes: # ## Absolutely nothing, seeing as there is no table for heterosexuals. # ## If, as you claim, the supposedly higher promescuity amongst homosexual # ## males makes them an insurance risk, you need to be show that # ## heterosexual males are less promiscuous than homosexual males. # ## Without the data on heterosexual males, we cannot make a comparison # ## between promiscuity rates of heterosexuals and homosexuals. # ##  # ## *             mjcugley@maths-and-cs.dundee.ac.uk (world)		* # ## *              or mjcugley@uk.ac.dund.maths-and-cs (UK)			* #  # Well, the obvious point to make is would straight men fuck like rabbits # if the oppertunity presented itself? #  # I reckon *any* *man* would go wildly promiscuous if presented with a # huge variety of willing partners.  The question here is not of being  That, I suppose, says a lot about how screwed up you are.  # #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine! # Xavier
Wasn't it Tricky Dick who issued stern warnings to Bush & Clinton not to 'Lose Russia'?  (a la 'Who lost China?')
In article <115298@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes: > BK: # ##So tell me---what's immoral about homosexuality? #  # CC: # #The promiscuity and fetishism that characterizes it. #  # Hmmm. #  # I've told you more than once that I've been monogamous for almost 4 years # now, and that I really don't get into fetishes.  Then you are nearly the only homosexual who is.  I don't believe you. You've changed your story before.  # Yet you maintain my homosexual activity is still immoral. #  # Care to elaborate? #  # For that matter, explain why fetishes are immoral? #  # kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,  The fact that your fetish is more important than who you are making love to.  (Actually, in your case, "having sex with.")
In article <15427@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >Homosexuals lie about the 10% number to hide the disproportionate >involvement of homosexuals in child molestation.  They also lie >about "10%" to keep politicians scared. >  Out and out lie.  Not substantiated. I do not understand statments like these. Please stop making such ridiculous claims.  Maybe you should consider working for or getting your information from the National Inquirer for now on.  >But many of the people who will be marching aren't homosexuals, but >other members of the leftist agenda. >  Ahh!  Rabbit from a hat.  Here is another desperate step to discount any activity of the Washington Gay March.  ># #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.... > >Not surprising.  Remember, that study includes homosexuals as well.
This was in Wed. WSJ.  [start] The white house, seeking to mount public pressure on GOP senators, bombarded news outlets in some senator's home states with news releases warning that certain projects may not be funded if the $16billion stimulus bill isn't passed.  None of the projects mentioned are actually in the bill, rather they are part of a wish list that may be funded from the $2.56 billion in Community Development Block Grants.  ...  [end]  I could have sworn I heard a bunch of Clintonites going on and on, raving about how dishonest it was that the Rebublicans were taking items from this wish list in order to ridicule this bill. Now that Clinton is using that same list in order to garner support for the bill, are you guys going to do the honarable thing and say that Clinton is being dishonest.
In article <1993Apr18.190534.28044@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> alaramor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Aaron C Laramore) writes: >Basically, I think this tendency for non african americans to believe that >something is wrong with us exists because non african americans don't want to >deal with the possiblility that the society is deeply biased against african >americans, and that this is about 80% of the problem.  There is something terribly wrong, however, with a culture which condemns, attacks, and all too often kills any of its members who attempt to get an education.  My mother is an elementary school teacher, and she tells me that she and her african american collegues are frustrated to tears by the fact that any african american child who attempts to do well in school and get an education is accused by his/her peers of "trying to be white", and is beaten, bullied, and tormented by them.  It goes beyond each passing grade on a test earning a beating.  In my mother's school, one of the most promising young students, who happened to be african american, had her throat cut by one of these young thugs.  Nobody who buys into such a culture has any hope of being anything but poor and/or a thug and/or dead, regardless of their color.  What has to be changed is the culture.  If that culture can't be changed, then those african-american kids who are willing to separate from it *must* be separated from it and the murderous thugs of whatever color.  Otherwise, future bright young african american girls who wanted to be doctors will end up dead on the school bus.
In <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. In an investigation of this +>size with the feds, state, and civilians involved in the +>investigation it would be practially impossible to cover up.  	The place has burned to the ground.  The FBI and company have the whole area cordoned off and have already arrested  reporters for being at the site and taking pictures.  	All your going to get in terms of a story is what the FBI, ATF and the Texas Rangers decide to release.      +>And with Republicans like Arlen Spector calling for investigations, +>this isn't going to be handled with kid gloves.   	When the Philadephia cops dropped their bomb on MOVE and managed to burn down an entire neighborhood many people said  the same thing.  Dead men and rubble tell no tales that the police dont want them to tell.
In article <1qrohrINNipe@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (Wil liam December Starr) writes: > >In article <1993Apr18.003848.21571@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.  [Ryan C Scharfy] >>> >>> 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...  [wdstarr] >> >> Yeah, Cancer is pretty cool, isn't it. > >Ryan, please explain how the "coolness" or lack thereof of cancer is >relevant to a discussion of the legalization of currently illegal >recreational drugs.  For that matter, please explain how it's even >relevant to a discussion of currently _legal_ recreational drugs such as >tobacco. [wdstarr]  You said it worked so well with tobacco.  I was being fascisious(I can't spell  worth a damn)  Look, this is getting ridiculous, first, I think tobacco should be legal.   Anybody who can't see the difference between tobacco and marijuana has got to  be high.
In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes: > Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been > better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months? >  >  1. Withdraw 2. leave the people in the compund to lead their lives as they choose. 3. prosecute the BAFT agents for murder  --
In article <C5IAK2.5zH@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:  > Clayton Cramer:  >> But what came out, in much lower profile reporting, was that the >> "victim" was a prostitute, and the man had not paid her -- hence the >> false accusation.  > There was no evidence the woman in question was a prostitute, the > defense merely alledged that she was.  The fact that she was wearing a miniskirt with no underwear was presented as evidence that she was a prostitute, and the court apparently found this compelling.  > Even Clayton knows the difference.  Err, perhaps Clayton doesn't know > the difference.  Clayton does indeed know the difference.  Greg apparently doesn't.  >> the judge found that there was some credible evidence that the Marines >> were engaged in self-defense.  > No, the judge found that the prosecution did not carry out the burder > on proof.  Because the judge found that there was some credible evidence that the Marines were engaged in self-defense.  Got it, knucklehead?  > A small clipping from clarinews, under fair use guidelines:   >    New Hanover District Court Judge Jacqueline Morris-Goodson ruled in >    the benchtrial that the state failed to carry its burden in proving >    the Marines acted to cause injury.  Because, in part [REPEAT AFTER ME], "the judge found that there was some credible evidence that the Marines were engaged in self-defense". Hopefully, one of these days you will understand.  > Interesting that in 2 of the 3 cases Clayton does what he accuses > others of doing.  With respect to credibility, I would rate Clayton Cramer an order of magnitude higher than a) the news media, and b) homosexuals.  > But I never thought Clayton was consistent.  Clayton is indeed consistent.  And so are you.
What does anyone think that Judge Wopner would do if Karadzic was       on trial before him?  (Nevah happen, but just a thought...)
spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:  >> Any thoughts on who is going to count all of the gorgeous bodies at  >> the MOW?  The press?  The White House Staff?  The most Junior  >> Senator?  The King of the motss/bi?   >> >> Just curious as to whose bias we are going to see when the numbers  >> get brought out. > >Probably, law enforcement people (Park Service Police and D.C. cops), >who will use aerial photographs and extrapolate based on the >density of the crowd in small regions. > >These sort of techniques derive from Army Intelligence and CIA >methods of estimating troop strength, and tend to be >methodologically skewed to always come up with inflated numbers, >so as to justify bigger budgets.  Judging from past experience (the '87 March, a Peace and Justice March the  same year, and 3 different Pro-coice Marches), The Park Service will come out with an estimate that is approximately 1/2 the estimate that organizers will come up with - though the last Choice march I went to had a sign-in system,  and the numbers ended up closer.  And then you've got the media types in their helicopters, rolling dice.  I believe the MOW plans and handing out some sort of wristband thingy, and  basing their count on those.  I see two problems with this.  One, can they  get *everybody* to take one (and only one)?  Two, they couldn't possibly have been able to choose a color/design that won't clash with *somebody's* outfit!
[In response to a report by CBN News correspondent Ken Lormond about a meeting between Slick Willie and homosexual activists:]  Lormond: "But Clinton will not be attending a rally by homosexuals in Washington later this month.  He will instead be out of town, on a retreat with Senate Democrats."  Robertson: "Yeah, he'd better retreat."  [Laughter, followed by sustained applause]  [Later, in a report by correspondent Deborah Whitsen on the fizzling boycott instigated by homosexuals against Colorado:]  Whitsen: "Colorado ski resorts have seen record crowds this year despite a call by homosexual activists for boycott of the state ... There have been record snowfalls in the mountains this year, and the skiers have been coming in droves ..."  Robertson: "And God said, let it snow ..."  [More sustained applause]
In article <Apr.15.21.39.43.1993.8726@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes: >Perhaps 1%, but most likely not more than 2%.  A new study >(discrediting Kinsey) says so. >--   Yes, I saw today in 6 o'clock news on KCBS here in San Francisco this statistic quoted.   2.2% men had sex with another man. 1.3% cinsider themself homosexual.  I understand of course that because this statistic goes against common believe and not PC-correct it must be complete BS.  Thx  vlad
Clayton Cramer (cramer@optilink.COM) wrote: :    [...]     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.  Ahh, what's good for the goose is not necessarily what's good for the gander.  You don't want homosexuals to impose their moral codes (such diabolical ideas as equal rights) on you, yet you are willing to impose your moral codes on them.  Do I detect a double standard?
In a previous article, ddn@cbnews.cb.att.com (david.d.nason) says:  >give me a break.        Give ME a break, chum.  Are you telling me that Clinton and       Reno DID NOT KNOW that the BATF actions were ILLEGAL, adn       in VIOLATION of their warrant?   >Be part of the solution - not the problem.
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.
In article <1993Apr2.154232.29527@Princeton.EDU>, glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) writes: > In article <1993Apr2.055109.5833@rigel.econ.uga.edu> depken@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Craig Depken) writes: > [to which is concluded...] > >The South only wanted FREE TRADE!!!  >  > No, they wanted slavery.  If free trade was in their economic interests > under that regime (which it was), then free trade they wanted too.  But  > Gary L Hewitt                          glhewitt@phoenix.princeton.edu  Of course, free trade and slavery don't make much sense together in a phrase anyway.  Perhaps Mr. Depken meant, "low import tariffs," but that is quite a bit less than "free trade."
In <philC5LqAD.K5u@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:  |What WILL you do for a religion now that Marxism-Leninism is dead?  Who said it was dead. It seems to be alive and well here on the net.
WOW !!!! Did I discover a great BBS !! It's called Sovereignty Lies In The People BBS: 916-589-4620  14.4 k baud.  FREE and Confidential ! Fictitious names OK !  Subjects and files contained on the BBS:  * FIND OUT HOW THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN SCAMMING US !!!! * State Citizenship documents and issues.   ARE YOU A CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC CITIZEN OR A U.S. FEDERAL CITIZEN ?   Remember there were only State Citizens before the 14th amendment!!   One is subject to federal income tax, one isn't.   Did you volunteer to surrender your State Citizenship when you got   your Social Security number?  Which one are you? * Tax laws and issues.  BEAT THE IRS * Traffic laws and issues.  BEAT TRAFFIC TICKETS.  Can you answer this one:   What law allows a police officer to arrest you without a warrant when   he issues you a ticket? * Religious truth issues.  ARE ALL RELIGIONS SCAMS ????   ARE ALL CHRISTIAN  RELIGIONS OF THE GREAT CREATOR GOD ???? * Trust documents and issues.  The SYSOP told me that instructions to beat traffic tickets will be on the BBS shortly.  Beat traffic tickets without going to court!!!  The BBS is GREAT, spread the word !!!! Also:  How come I don't hear more people talking about the Federal Reserve Bank?  Just ask yourself these questions:  1) Why would anyone borrow money from themselves at interest? The Federal government does * NOT * * NOT * The Federal reserve Bank is private.  The American people are being ripped off royally.  100% of the income tax goes to pay on the Federal debt to the Federal Reserve Bankers.  Not one dime goes for services.  Services like the military and welfare come from excise taxes and the like.  2) Why do we the American people stand for this?????
Jamie R. McCarthy (k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu) wrote: : 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?  The only time I have heard mention of such a mechanism is with respect to FEMALE homosexuality resulting from HETEROSEXUAL childhood abuse. (and this as only one of several factors affecting the same person)  As Mr Cramer appears to concentrate on MALE homosexuality I doubt this is what he has in mind.  --
In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes: > >	If you look through this newsgroup, you should be  >	able to find Clinton's proposed "Wiretapping" Initiative                      ^^^^^^^^^ >	for our computer networks and telephone systems. > >	This 'initiative" has been up before Congress for at least >	the past 6 months, in the guise of the "FBI Wiretapping"         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >	bill.  What kind of brainless clod posted the above garbage? Would they be so kind as to explain how this is "Clinton's" initiative, when it has been before Congress for "at least the past 6 months"?