waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
Do the words "chilling effect" stimulate impulses within that small collection of neurons you call a brain?  cpk --  It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?
In article <1993Apr13.174636.15142@ads.com>, henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch) writes: > carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) wrote:  # -#	Just curious (don't have to answer if you feel uncomfortable): # -#	how many times have YOU had sex with boys? #  # why do you care?  if a total stranger asked you how often you had sex, # would you answer? #  # # henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com#  This is so typical of homosexuals -- constantly making excuses for child molesters.
In article <1qvnmkINNoc6@life.ai.mit.edu> Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House) writes: > >                 STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY > >[...] > >The initiative will involve the creation of new products to  >accelerate the development and use of advanced and secure  >telecommunications networks and wireless communications links. > >[...] > >A state-of-the-art microcircuit called the "Clipper Chip" has  >been developed by government engineers.  The chip represents a  >new approach to encryption technology.  It can be used in new,  >relatively inexpensive encryption devices that can be attached to  >an ordinary telephone.  It scrambles telephone communications  >using an encryption algorithm that is more powerful than many in  >commercial use today. > >This new technology will help companies protect proprietary  >information, protect the privacy of personal phone conversations  >and prevent unauthorized release of data transmitted  >electronically.  At the same time this technology preserves the  >ability of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to  >intercept lawfully the phone conversations of criminals.          While also allowing law enforcement agencies to intercept phone conversations of criminals *and* non-criminals unlawfully.  ("No, Rev. King, we aren't spying on you.")         I wonder how long it will take for "the wrong people" to put their hands on the equipment necessary to read this stuff.  It'll probably be as safe as weapons locked safely in evidence rooms.  >"keys," numbers that will be needed by authorized government  >agencies to decode messages encoded by the device.  When the  >device is manufactured, the two keys will be deposited separately  >in two "key-escrow" data bases that will be established by the  >Attorney General.  Access to these keys will be limited to  >government officials with legal authorization to conduct a  >wiretap.         And people to whom they sell them to.  All it takes is corrupting the right guy.  No, that never happens.
In article <C5M2F9.GEB@news.iastate.edu> atboyken@iastate.edu (Aaron T Boyken) writes: > >If the VAT will be done in the same way that state and local sales  >taxes are done, nothing will be on the sticker.  The cleark ringing >up your purchase (gum, gas, car, etc.) will hit a button to add  >another 5% on top of the state and local sales taxes (and that won't >include any of the VAT from previous levels of sales). >  There is no need to include the VAT from previous levels because the VAT is a "difference" tax...if the VAT is X%, than the amount of tax the government receives through all the levels is X% of the purchase price of the end consumer.  At the intervening levels, only the difference between the VAT paid out and the VAT received is remitted to the government.  >Here's a question:  what if, instead of a true VAT, the federal  >government imposed a sales tax of say 2-3%?  The tax would only >be paid on retail sales (thus not building up at all levels of >production costs that are just passed on to consumers anyway), >and would only go to reducing the deficit.  (I know that this  >would never happen, but it seems a lot more palettable than >a VAT).  A VAT is infinitely preferable to a retail sails tax...
In article <C5nH58.Hp4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes: >thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes: >>In article <C5Lp0y.FDK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes: >>>How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives on >>>the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that >>                                                               ^^^^^ >>>took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?   > >>I'm curious why you think that particular adjective is important. > >I'm curious why you took a beign statement and cross-posted it to several >different news groups, including something along the lines of  >alt.discrimination.    Exsqueeze me?  I saw *your* original post in alt.discrimination. Your post was cross-posted to three groups.  My followup was cross-posted to two of those three (omitting soc.motss).  Now, instead of engaging in meta-discussion off the topic, could you answer  the question posed?  If your statement is so "beign"(!?), you should have no trouble politely responding to a polite query.
In article <1993Apr15.193603.14228@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes: >>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.  Gee, the War on Drugs has been going on for all these years and they're still getting drugs!  Imagine that...  My friends who like grass (I don;t agree but it's pretty harmless) are unable to get it, yet I know a number of places where someone stupid enough could get crack cocaine within a half hour of leaving my office.  The War on Drugs has been completely unsuccessful, yet it's lead to really horrible abuses of peoples' COnstitutional rights.  I don't see how a thinking person could justify it.
It is interesting, sometimes, to listen to U.S. news as seen through the eyes of another country.......  B.B.C. world news service, on short-wave, originating out of London, reports that a survivor of the Waco massacre states that a tank, when making a hole in the wall of the building, knocked over a kerosene lamp and that is how the fire started.  Attempts were made by the people inside to put out the fire, but it spread too quickly.  Has anyone in U.S. heard anything similar or are U.S. government spin-doctors censoring such information?
Phill Hallam-Baker (hallam@zeus02.desy.de) writes: >gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes: >|>cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok) writes: >|>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes: >|>>}  >|>>} Secondly, any Canadian who has worked and participates in the >|>>} insurance (it's a negative option, you have to explicitly decline >|>>} it) knows that the premium is deducted separately ... >|>> >|>>yes, and some Americans actually have a problem with having more >|>>of their money taken from them to pay for others' health care... >|> >|>But note again, the Canadian and German health insurance is >|>voluntary > >Not true. I am required to have insurance by law. the method of >collection effectively makes it a tax.  Could it be because you're British, Phill, and living in Germany? While the EC working rules are more liberal than what we have in the 1989 US-Canada FTA, there's probably a law about that (having health insurance coverage is a condition of my being down here, for example).  You have mentioned this once before, yet both the NY Times profile on the German sickness funds (late Jan.) and pamphlets that my girlfriend gives to her language students from the German consulate both say that it is "voluntary" (okay, there were quotation marks (-;) and that only 90% of the population is covered by the sickness funds (analogous to our provincial health insurances, but not divided by province/state).  Another guy in health care policy says that the Turkish guest workers aren't covered ... he's written to me a couple of times (he's not a post-er).  I'll ask him ...  gld
In article <4892@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM writes:  > I hear the jury reached a verdict.  Where did you hear this?  I seem to have missed it.  > Is LA burning yet?  No.  Will L.A. burn?  No.  (Regardless of the verdict.)  > I'm not near a radio.  Count your blessings.
hagenjd@wfu.edu (Jeff Hagen) writes:   >A good two-party system will bring Italy efficient, accountable government.  yeah, just like we have here in the US.   --
In article <Apr.2.07.48.07.1993.21309@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) wrote: >  > When I entered 1st grade, Eisenhower was President and John F. Kennedy > was just a relatively obscure Senator from New England.  So how old do > you think I am now?  Ask me whether I'm surprised that you haven't managed to waddle out of college after all this time.
In article <1993Apr20.163253.8785@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes: >	After going to great lenghts to describe the people inside as hostages >of Koresh (eg, people leaving "escaped"), and stating that "generals have no >place in law enforcement" it appears that Janet and the FBI/ATF have egg on >their faces. > >	80+ "hostages" dead. > >	Two unsuccessful assualts. > >	Janet, some advice: go with the SEALs/Delta Force/Green Berets next >time and talk nicely to the generals.    This might be illegal without a very specific Presidential declaration or even a change in law. In general (sic), U.S. military troops are not permitted to be used for domestic policing operations.  > >	BTW-does Janet think that military police are oxymorons? >
In article <stevethC5Js6F.Fn5@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes: >	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!).  Hello, is there anybody in there?  You think you have to pay for this idiot's problem now, who's going to pay for the ballooning number of addicts and  all of the associated problems with them.  I don't even want to think about it with Hillary in the White House and an administration that "feels our pain".  No harm but to himself?  What about when he drives his school bus full of kids into a train.  When he gets stoned and drives up on a sidewalk and kills 5 people.  When he lives off me on Welfare for the rest of his life.
In article <philC5Ht85.H48@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: > >Not at all. You are apparently just another member of the Religious Left. >                                                                         Not at all.  I am not a member of the Religious Left, Right, or even Center.  In fact I don't consider myself very religious at all [ this will probably result in flames now :) ].  In fact Phil, you should leave religion out of it.  It just clouds the issue.                                                                         >Show me all these environmental "disasters". Most of them aren't. And the >natural disasters we have had individually far outweigh the man-made ones.                                                                           How typical.  So you think we shouldn't avoid these 'events' [ I shall refrain from the word disaster since it seems to upset you so much.  :( ] when we can.  In case you didn't realize it, the natural disasters [ oops, sorry events ] you are refering to  we have no control over.  Man-made ones we do.  I guess you missed the show on Ch 20 earlier this week about the disaster [ oops there I go again... I meant to say event ] on the Exxon Valdez. Just a natural every day occurance to spread oil on 300 Miles of beach. I would like to know which natural event [ hey I remembered not to say disaster ] that would be similar to this. 							        >Most of your so-called disasters (Love Canal, Times Beach, TMI) aren't >disasters at all.                                                                     Hmm, I suppose you could be right.  They are as natural as a tree, or a sunrise.  NOT !                                                                           >So look, if you want to worship trees (or owls or snails or whatever), fine, do >so. But DON'T try to push the scaredness of YOUR religious off onto me. >  So look, if you want to worship a oil slick ( or toxic waste dump or live in a house that has a cesspool in the front yard ), fine, you have my permission to do so [ yea right like you need MY permission... ], it just won't be in the neighborhood where I live.  But DON'T try to push your shortsighted tunnelvision views off on the rest of us.
From article <C4zLJ8.Bun@queernet.org>, by rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese): > In article <15148@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:  #>NAMBLA's presence in the SF Gay Pride Parade says quite a bit. #>It says that either the parade organizers want to show support #>for NAMBLA, or they themselves have a fundamental misunderstanding #>of their rights and responsibilities.  I would really, really like #>to believe the latter, but I would need some help to do so.  > There are dozens of examples of the latter; NAMBLA is an especially > glaring one, but hardly the only one.  Perhaps, though the exclusion of the Gay Perotistas in the SF Gay Pride Parade would make me think that they had some clue in this regard.  Dozens of examples?  I don't know...
In article <1qvb5aINNmoi@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU 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 #  # Note this contradictory title-  Gay Activity Low.  Not really.  The percentage of gays was low.  Headline writers aren't noted for accuracy.  # #    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 article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners. # #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3. #  # #It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for # #straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically # #how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are. # #--  #  # Now let's take a quick look at what you are saying. #  # 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  Actually, 2% were either exclusively homosexual, or bisexual.  You aren't readiing very carefully.  # 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. #  # Interesting results.
In article <C5L4rp.EBM@news.iastate.edu> jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes: >In article <1993Apr15.165139.6240@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes: >>> I really don't want to waste time in >>> here to do battle about the legalization of drugs.  If you really want to, we >>> can get into it and prove just how idiotic that idea is!   >> >>  Read: I do not know what the fuck I'm talking about, and am >>not eager to make a fool of myself. > >Oh, you foolish person.  I do know what the fuck I'm talking about >and will gladly demonstrate for such ignorants as yourself if you >wish. > >The legalization of drugs will provide few if any of the benefits >so highly taunted by its proponents:  safer, cheaper drugs along >with revenues from taxes on those drugs; reduced crime and reduced >organized crime specifically; etc, etc  Ahhh, the classic Truth By Blatant Assertion technique.  Too bad it's so demonstrably false.  Take a look at Great Britain sometime for a  nice history on drug criminalization.  The evidence there shows that during periods of time when drugs (such as heroin) were illegal, crime went up and people did die from bad drugs.  During times when drugs were legalized, those trends were reversed.  > >If you would like to prove how clueless you are, we can get into >why - again a lot of wasted posts that I don't think this group >was intended for and something easily solved by you doing a little >research.  Now this is a great example of an ironclad proof.  Gosh, I'm convinced. ( :-} for the humor impaired).  First, assert something for which you have no evidence, then dodge requests for proof by claiming to know what this group was intended for.  As to research, if you'd done any at all, you'd realize that there is plenty of reason to believe that legalizing drugs will have many benefits to society.  There are some plausible arguments against it, too, but they aren't enough to convince me that criminalization of drugs is the answer.  I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt the likes of you can do it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...Dale Cook    "Any town having more churches than bars has a serious                    social problem." ---Edward Abbey The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
I replied to your message, however, it is listed as a new topic with the title: "rnitedace and violence". Possibly line noise or error caused to post as a new topic. I see it here as #100.  Regards,
dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:  >Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for >their deaths.  She should resign immediately.   ( I AGREE ! )   >She should have  >understood that David Koresh was a madman who would do anything >against the children if he became provoked.  All the warning  >signs were there and she ignored them.  She provoked Koresh >into killing the children.  	I think the problem here is that Mrs. Reno strikes me ( After watching NightLine Last night ) as a person who is incapable of understanding OR dealing with a great number of things.
Clayton Cramer writes: #Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson, #and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that #homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general #male population.    Did you ever consider the selection effect that those who are willing to admit to being a member sexual minority (homosexuality) are more willing to admit to being a member of another sexual minority (highly promiscious)?   I didn't think that you did.
boyd@turtle.fisher.com writes:  > In article <ws0s2B1w165w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org   (Chris Winemiller) writes: > > BTW, is anyone besides myself peeved that non-US citizens (Puerto > > Ricans, etc.) are very close to having full representation in the U.S. > > House of Representatives? > > >  >    Sorry Chris, Puerto Ricans are US citizens.  OK.  I stand corrected.  I guess, then, that the comments about payoffs (i.e., "pork") to Puerto Ricans that others have been making still stands?  Now, everybody, how about some opinion on the following related topic:  Should the people who are natives of U.S. territories have representation in the U.S. House of Rep's or the U.S. Congress? The U.S. Constitution sets up the House of Representatives to represent each State in proportion to its population, and the Senate to represent each State equally.  What should be done with U.S. territories like Puerto Rico?  Does anyone have knowledge about how this was handled in the past, such as with the Louisiana Territory or the Northwest Territory?  Chris
(oh boy. it's the [in]famous Phill Hallam-Baker.)  In article <C5Jy07.8GK@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes: }  } In article <1993Apr15.053553.16427@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes: }  } |>cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok) writes: } |>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes: } |>... but like "basic plus" cable, you have to tell them that you don't } |>want it ... for example, Hutterite colonies in western Canada are not } |>part of it (Mennon and Hutter were fundamentalist Protestants from } |>Germany whose followers left for the New World ... Mennonites are a } |>very diverse lot while Hutterites are similiar to the Amish).  The } |>American idea being floated today gives you no option but to live } |>off the land ... } |> } |>>the selfish bastards that they are. unfortunately, that number has } |>>diminished recently, but once President Pinocchio gets through } |>>with us, i hope for a reversal of trend. }  } Well here we have the right hoping for more selfish bastards. Pity they } don't look at what 12 years of the Regan/Bush "selfish Bastard" ecconomy } has done to the country.  how about what 25 years of tax-and-spend, big government, institutionalized dependency, and out-of-control good intentions at others' expense has done to the country? }  } Elect a selfish bastard government and they will run the country for themselves, } thats why they are selfish bastards. Bush and Regan gave tax breaks for the } ultra rich and paid for them by borrowing against the incomes of the middle } class.  yeah, right. and Clinton is any different? please. he is just a better lia... i mean, politician.  you think Slick and his gang of elitist socialist academics will lead us to the promised land? don't hold your breath.
In article <Ufk_Gqu00WBKE7cX5V@andrew.cmu.edu>, ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ashish Arora) writes: |> Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 5-Apr-93 Re: Supply Side Economic Po.. |> by Not a Boomer@desire.wrig  |> [...] |>  |> >    The deficits declined from 84-9, reaching a low of 2.9% of GNP before   |> > the tax and spending hike of 1990 reversed the trend. |> >   |> > Brett |> Is this true ?  Some more details would be appreciated. |>  |> cheers  Actually not.  Brett himself has actually posted the data previously. What declined from 84 to 89, as I remember it, was _percent increase_in_deficit_growth, i.e. the rate of growth of the deficit  (2nd derivative of total deficit with respect of to time) decreased. Brett apparently has numbed himself into thinking that the deficit declined.  If you keep spending more than you earn, the deficit keeps growing.  If you keep _borrowing_ at a lesser rate than you borrowed previously, the deficit increases.  You only decrease deficits when your income exceeds spending and you use the difference to pay off debts.  Figgie's book paints the real data, pictorially, in gory detail.  Each president, essentially ran up twice as much total debt, in half the time. Reagan/congress was simply awful.  Bush/congress was unbelievable.  As a really rigorous aside to this thread.....  During pledge night the other night on the public channel, there was an "economist" who gave an hour or so presentation.  His data was predictive and based largely on population data. I don't know his name, but his arguments were brilliant.  He confirmed, with data, what many of us know with common sense -- the boom of the 80's has nothing to do with government policy, particularly "supply side" policy, since taxes do not "cause"  economic activities.  People cause economic activity.  More can be  explained by watching population waves roll through the years and  create cycles.  He has made models and predictions for years well into the middle of next century.  It will be neat to see how accurate he is.