waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
THE WHITE HOUSE                     Office of the Press Secretary                                                                      For Immediate Release                             April 15, 1993                     STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY         The President will travel to Pittsburgh on Saturday, April  17 to talk about his job creation plan and its impact on the  state of Pennsylvania, where it would create as many as 3,818  full time jobs and up to 21,240 summer jobs.  He will make a  public address at Pittsburgh International Airport at 9:30 am.         The President will leave Washington early Saturday morning  and return that afternoon.  A White House press charter will  depart Andrews Air Force Base at 7:30.  Filing facilities will be  available in Pittsburgh.
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) -BTW, I'm a WALC (white aryan lapsed catholic) - --- -d'baba Duane M. Hentrich        baba@Tymnet.Com -    I would like to go on record as objecting to Mr. Hentrich calling himself an Aryan.  The word `Aryan' is of Sanskrit origin and occurs first in the Hindu scripture, the Rigveda.  It seems to have been a tribal term but may have had connotations of good character.  Such connotations are quite explicit in the sayings of the Buddha who called his religion the eightfold Aryan path.   The word was borrowed by the German scholar Max Mueller who used it as a synonym for `indo-european', but then the Nazis proceeded to steal it and started pretending that `aryan' is synonymous with `nordic' which seems highly unlikely.  The people who originally called themselves aryas,  the Iranians, Noprth Indians, the Afghans and possibly the Kurds, are none of them nordic.  So the use of the word by Westerners, though meant with apparent good humor in this case, is nontheless inappropriate.  The only Westerners who may have some claim to call themselves Aryans (by descent) are the Celts who seem to have wor- shipped a god called Aryaman who is mentioned in the Rigveda.    If you want to check what I am saying, look at  Mallory's book, ``In search of the Indo-Europeans" or, just look at the Encyclopedia Britannica. The reason this usage is offensive is that most of Ancient Indian literature as well as religion is directly or inderectly due to the Aryans and for Westerners to butt in is really not nice, not to mention the horrible things done by Germans to Jews, using a word to which the Germans have no clear claim.
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 figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday # #    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than # #    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional # #    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report. #  # 1) So what?  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.  # 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.  # #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.  # #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.   #  # And what did this study show for number of sexual contacts for those # who said they where homosexual? Or is that number to inconvient for # you....  It wasn't published.  # #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. #  # Fuck off  Typical homoseuxal response.
In article <15454@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes: >In article <C5oG5H.4DE@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes: > >> 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. > >If true, and if gays were the same as straights except >for sexual preference, I would imagine that gays would >have much less sex than straights because the available >pool for dates is less than one-tenth what it is for >straights.  Somebody correct (flame) me please!  I *cannot* *believe* I am posting in this thread, but what the hell, he asked for it.  I had sort of the same reaction myself when I was first realizing I was bi.  "So what, >90% of everyone else is straight, I'd never end up with a guy anyway."  As several people on soc.bi pointed out to me, this is true only if you find partners (for relationships or just for sex) in primarily straight circles.  Nowadays with gay culture quite visible in major cities and such, you can easily find yourself in an overwhelmingly queer social circle if you so choose.  (About half my friends are bi, and that's just from hanging out in the science fiction club and going to UCBU once a week, it's not as if I have to go out of my way and hang out in bars or something.)  So the available pool for dates can be the same size.  Unless of course you're trying to date a random sample of the US population.  As for promiscuity, I've traded email with Clayton on the topic, and he still doesn't seem to want to admit that yes, gay males are sometimes forced to resort to anonymous sex because they're closeted and can't afford to be seen in a permanent relationship. Or that part of the promiscuity is because of the messed-up gender roles in our society, and when males are dating males and they've *all* been trained to be the aggressor in sex, there's going to be more sex.  Or that what's "dysfunctional", what's "screwed up" is societal attitudes, not gay sexuality, and that's what  encourages deviant behavior in gay males.  (also note that just because someone's had 200 sex partners  doesn't mean they're promiscuous.  yes, it sounds ridiculous, but it's quite possible for someone to go through a heavily closeted phase in which they have lots of anonymous sex with strangers, and then come out, start forming real relationships, and be monogamous or nearly so...)
In article <116288@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes: >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. > >1. You haven't shown any disproportionate involvement. > >2. The Janus Report, which came out recently, gives 9% as the percentage >of exclusively or predominantly gay men.    I thumbed through the Janus Report in a bookstore recently looking   for a clue about their methodology.   They were very unclear about   it, but as far as I could tell they relied on their professional   associates in the psychotherapy profession to provide the subjects,   interviews, and numbers.    If so, this would hardly represent an   average cross-section.    I posted to Usenet at the time asking for   more data about their methodology but answer came there none.  (I   must have been out of my mind for even asking for factual information   on Usenet!)   >3. No one is presumably going to say they're gay if they're not. But >some no doubt are going to hide their homosexuality in surveys. Thus >the 1-2% is a lower limit.    This is the problem.  People have to have a lot of confidence in    the anonymity of a study before they can counted on to speak    freely about stuff like that.    But I agree that if someone's    going to lie it will be in the direction of a gay person claiming   to be straight rather than the other way around.   >I still say that weighing all the evidence gives a most likely percentage >between 5 and 7%.    I don't see why there's any more evidence for this figure than any   other.    It seems totally arbitrary.
Cancel private health insurance?  	When government care that only covers 20% of the population consumes 42% of the spending for health care?  	NOT!  	National Health Expenditures: 1960 to 1990 (Includes Puerto Rico and outlying areas.)  Year	Health Services and Supplies ($billions) 	Private		Public ==================================== 1960	$19.8		$5.7	(22% of total) 1970	$44.1		$24.9	(56% of total) 1980	$140.7		$98.1	(41% of total) 1990	$374.8		$268.6	(42% of total)  [Source: American Almanac, Page 97.  1992-3 Edition]  	Now you understand where most of that 12.2% of GNP is going--to waste.  	By these figures, private insurance is spending 58% of the money to cover 4 times as many people.  	Go figure.
In article <philC5HsII.GFt@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:  >Naw, I think you are. While both organizations may, on paper, support the >abolition of the age of consent, there the resemblance stops.  >One supports the removal of a coercive law, the other a paper facade >to "legitimize" sexual relations with children.  I get it.  One organization wants to abolish age of consent laws, whereas in contrast the other wants to abolish age of consent laws. This makes it respectable to belong to one organization, but not the other.
In article <1993Apr19.221331.26203@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM writes: > 	One of you said "Nixon didn't use the office of the presidency >   for personal gain." >  > This is a lie. The Senate committee issued an indictment that listed > Nixon's crimes. The relevant ones were:  > 1) Violating his oath of office. > 2) ABUSING HIS PRESIDENTIAL POWERS  "Personal gain": for his own monetary advantage.  I don't think anyone would dispute that he both violated his oath of office, and abused his powers.  But that's not for personal gain.  > "Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has          Garrett Johnson
Phill Hallam-Baker (hallam@dscomsa.desy.de) wrote:  : First off they could recognise Iraqu's responsibility in initiating the : Iran/Iraq war. Providing technical assistance to Iran to get it's oil : production back up to capacity would also be a smart move, at the moment  : Iran is above it's OPEC ceiling. If they had extra capacity they would : use it and bring down the oild price further which is in our interests.  I agree with most of what Phill says, except the point about it being in our interests to bring down the oil price.  Consider that both the U.S. and Great Britain have domestic sources to partly satisfy  their energy needs.    Pricy OPEC oil impacts both Germany, Japan and many other "industrial rivals" more than these two.   In addition, the proceeds from the sale (especially by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait U.A.E. etc) are disproportionately reinvested in the U.S. and G.B.,  propping up these economies and further providing an incentive  to keep prices from falling too low.
In article <1qksa4INNi7m@shelley.u.washington.edu>, tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes: > demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes: >>	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? >  > How can a witness tell that someone in a burning truck is dead rather than > unconscious?  	Their testimony would be a contradiction of the plaintiff's charge (and witness) that the occupant moved after the impact, indicating he was alive and trying to get out (and provoking all sorts of sympathetic 'gross, burned alive' reactions).  >>	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? >  > What kind of witnesses?  If we are talking about witnesses who were at > the accident, or were otherwise directly involved (e.g., paramedics, > emergency room doctors, etc.), then they should have been used at the > first trial.  You don't get a new trial because you screwed up and > forgot to call all of your witnesses.  	They are two witnesses who didn't come forth until after the first trial.  While it would be "tough luck" for GM if they new about these witnesses beforehand, IMO this constitutes "new evidence".  > If we are talking about new expert witnesses who will offer new > interpretations of the data, note that the loser can *ALWAYS* find > such witnesses.  If this were grounds for a new trial, then the loser > could *ALWAYS* get a new trial, and keep doing so until the loser > becomes a winner (and then the other side would come up with new > expert witnesses).  	No, I support rulings that deny new trials on those grounds.
# 179 Czech Republic  # 180 Republic of Slovakia  They were admitted early       this year.  Liechenstein was also recently admitted.  Also San Marino.        Both within the last 12 months.  Incredible what passes for a nation-sta            state nowadays.
In article <1993Apr03.102200.4802@armory.com> rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes: >In article <C4tI6G.8C3@exnet.co.uk> sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes: >>In article <C4oBCK.761@unix.portal.com> drakon@shell.portal.com (Harry Benjamin Gibson) writes: >>>There is something that bothers me about this whole arguement. >>> >>> >>>5) Could someone please CALMLY explain why homosexuality is such a great sin? >>>   Without giving the standard "Just because God sez so". Almost all of Judeo- >> >> >> >>Thanks for your posting, I enjoyed it. >> >>The reason Homosexuality is a sin is because the Jews were a struggling >>group of people trying hard to survive and differentiate between >>themselves and their oppressors.  This led to several things. >> >>1. Worshipping one god.  All their foes were polytheistic. >> >>2. All sex was put in to a moral context.  All their foes were perverts >>   and spilled their seed liberally.   >-------------------------------- >It's just as easy to spill seed or spread it thin heterosexualy, why then >the specific prohibition on homosexuals, especially since the answer to >everything back then was stoning to death, doesn't help population growth >much. Also to just say that "their foes were perverts" begs the question,  The key word is `spilled'.  If semen was spilled anywhere where there was a chance of procreation it was OK.  If it was spilt on the ground or in to a man it was a big sin, ditto with animals. The jews said sex=pro- creation.  Homosexuals didn't breed, there fore they are evil and should be stoned to death.     > >>3. All sex was directed towards breeding.  The jews were few in number >>   and their foes many.  To survive everything had to go into multiplication. >-------------------------------------- >Like I said, stoning to death doesn't help population much. It sounds more >like a set of prejudices that already existed and were blown into a religion >to emphasize the differences of Jewish culture and enshrine some pretty   Stoning non-breeding population was fine.  Only the breeders were considered to be worth much.  >>   1% Jesus, 70% Judaism, 29% original (prejudiced) Bullshit. >------------------------------- >I'll buy the bullshit. He was a profound misogynist as well. He might have >been bitterly gay himself. No record of marriage. >-RSW > >>>Ben Gibson >>Xavier > > >--  >* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *   Xavier
In a previous article, mconners@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael R Conners) says:  >In article <C4zrEH.C7s@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) write >s: > >The real question: Should the Feds bail-out Steve Jobs & NeXT (a la Chrysler) >so that important manufacturing jobs wouldn't be lost?         No.  The REAL question:  Should the Feds bail-out IBM ( a la Chrysler )   so that important $80K manufacturing jobs wouldn't be lost?
In article <1993Apr17.013559.17391@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:     >>I see you are a total ignorant asshole as well.     >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It's the sign of a small mind to use filthy     >language when he can't articulate his point.  Oh, no, not in this case. I've noticed that you conveniently edited out your stupid comment that the PRC stands for Cambodia. When we're arguing the Vietnam war and about Cambodia, and you toss in a boner like that (along with your other boners), you are an ignorant asshole.  Oh, and even the Vietnamese agree that they did far more damage to Cambodia than we ever did.     --  There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of environmental disaster. Weird, eh?
In <C50FHG.MEA@ocsmd.ocs.com> mark@ocsmd.ocs.com (Mark Wilson) writes:  >Yuri Villanueva (elmo@cybernet.cse.fau.edu) wrote: >: pbray@envy.reed.edu (Public account) writes: >:  >: > In article <1993Apr2.180839.14305@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>   >: > as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes: >: >> In <1993Apr2.064804.29008@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>   >: >> michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero) writes: >: >>  >: >>We are told, by U.S. congresswoman Barbara Jordan, that we are biologically >: >>incapable of compassion. >Personally, I doubt she said anything of the kind, but if >someone can provide the ORIGINAL quote, IN CONTEXT, WITH SOURCE >(for, ahem, cross-checking), I would we willing to agree >she is full of sh*t.  Naturally, if no one can provide these >bits of data, the paraphrase listed must be disregarded, >and its poster regarded as full of sh*t.  OK, so which will it be?  I followed up without a thought of double-checking...if I double-checked every fact people vomited onto the table here on the net, I'd never have time to sleep.  But to pass the buck to the person who originally posted that quote...  ...well, Michael?  Take it away!  (wild applause)  Drewcifer
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.  1. You haven't shown any disproportionate involvement.  2. The Janus Report, which came out recently, gives 9% as the percentage of exclusively or predominantly gay men.  3. No one is presumably going to say they're gay if they're not. But some no doubt are going to hide their homosexuality in surveys. Thus the 1-2% is a lower limit.  I still say that weighing all the evidence gives a most likely percentage between 5 and 7%.  Brian
In article <mvpC5rB2H.D2F@netcom.com>, mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) says: >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.  You know, you have a point here, but don't stop with African Americans... When I was in high school in the early 1980s, on various occasions I had knives pulled on me, had friends who were stabbed, and I was beaten up repeatedly by those that couldn't accept me as different.  And don't let the teachers off the hook either.  On many many occasions, there were teachers that either resented me or were too scared out of their wits by the bullies to even stop the people who attacked me and they would just watch quietly...  All of this was in a nice white middle class high school.  In fact, we were so nice and white that we made sure that the one black kid in my class was unable to go to the prom with his white girlfriend...  This isn't a race thing, it's the way public schools seem to be run...  I'd hate to be in high school right now...  At least I didn't have to deal with guns, just the roving psycho-drug-dorks and the jocks- without-a-future-but-with-plenty-of-testosterone...  I'd separate everyone who wants to learn from these assholes...  But hey, the valuelessness of learning and glorification of jocks is an American tradition, you think anything is going to change?  If you have kids, take 'em out of the public school system and educate them yourself... That's what I'll do if I ever have them...  I wouldn't wish what I went through upon any kid...  Maybe on some of their parents though...