waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
Richard Chandler (mauser@terminus.apexgrp.com) wrote: : > From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)  :      Bzzzzt.  THANK you for playing, but obviously you are not reading the  :   material as it is presented.  According to the report I've got in my  :   hands, the Newsweek article (which reported that "2 to 3 percent" of the  :   population is gay) used the criteria of "No heterosexual contact in the  :   past year."  But at the same time, the University of Denver study points  :   out, quite dramatically, that 60% of all self-identifying gay men have  : > had some form of heterosexual contact in the past year.  :  : I think the big mistake in that study must be that if one had had no sexual  : contact of any kind in the previous year, they are counted as heterosexual. : Even if they didn't intend it that way, that's how the figures are being used.  Could someone please post some date such as what questonnares where used and how they were distributed and returned.  --
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?      Anything but...      Bill Clinton and Janett Reno should not have started the whole     shenanigan in the first place.   --  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
In a previous article, Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92) says:  >	     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. >	      >kind of working together.  And if you'll forgive me a little home  >state pride, I want to say a special word of thanks to the Wal-Mart  >Corporation, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, for providing  >several hundred of the sites for this town meeting tonight.  I              When did Bill start doing endorsements?           Will he do the "Remington Shaver" ad?
This is as bad as the "Did You Know"  Japan bashing of 2 weeks ago.  After finding  this set of postings for the third time I hope no one shows up.  I don't know why fools insist on posting to every group.  It just agrevates people.
croaker@highlite.uucp (Francis A. Ney) writes:  > Besides which, we don't *want* Clinton assasinated, because that would make h > a martyr a la JFK. >  > It's a much better deal to have him end his term of office in disgrace, after > watching all his liberal democrat friends on his staff run this nation down t > toilet. >  > Assuming, of course, that the riots a fortnight from now don't do it for him.   He'd have to go a far ways to run things down as bad as Reagan and Bush  did.  We didn't have riots but Bush got dumped out on his spotty Behind.   We'll see in 4 years.   Pope Charles Slack in our time!  ?s
Ahhh, remember the days of Yesterday?  When we were only  	going to pay $17 / month?  	When only 1.2% of the population would pay extra taxes?  	Remember when a few of us predicted that it wasn't true?  :) 	Remember the Inaugural?   Dancing and Singing!  Liberation 	at last!    	Well, figure *this* out:  	5% VAT, estimated to raise $60-100 Billion per year ( on CNN ) 	Work it out, chum...  	     $60,000,000,000  /  125,000,000 taxpayers = $480 / year          But, you exclaim, " I'll get FREE HEALTH CARE! " 	But, I exclaim, " No, you won't! "  	This is only for that poor 37 million who have none.  Not for 	YOU, chum. :)  That comes LATER.  	Add in the estimates of the energy tax costs - $300-500 / year  	Plus, all that extra "corporate and rich" taxes that will  	trickle down, and what do you have?  	$1,000 / year, just like I said two months ago.  	And, the best part?   You don't GET ANYTHING for it.  	Deficit is STILL projected to rise at same rate it's  been 	rising at, by CLINTON'S OWN ESTIMATES.  And this assumes that 	his plan WILL WORK!  	I mean, come on, it doesn't take a ROCKET SCIENTIST to see 	that in another 2 or 3 years, we're GETTING ANOTHER WHOPPING 	TAX INCREASE, because the deficit will STILL be GROWING  	FASTER THAN the ECONOMY.  	All Clinton is doing, is moving us to a HIGHER diving board.          Face it.  Clinton is Bush X 2.  In four more years, our 	country will be completely bankrupt, and your children's 	future, so oft mentioned by Pal Bill, will be gone.  	And those of you still deluding yourselves will be faced 	with the guilt.  	Well, <glancing at watch>, gotta go.  I want to be out of 	here by noon.  Got an appointment at the lake.  No tax 	there, yet.
In article <C5wKyG.3Fy@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:  > |>1)  They raided an American's property because of *rumors* about > |>    Koresh's intentions with some converted, yet still 2nd-amendment > |>    protected, firearms (a judge-approved warrant justifies nothing)  > In a democracy under the rule of law a search warrant justifies a  > search.  And this search procedure must also follow the rule of law.  > The US constitution does not justify murder of those attempting to  > mount a search for illegally held weapons.  It may, if necessary, when the search is executed in an illegal and violent fashion.  > The Govt has a right to use lethal force in certain cases. Attempts to  > capture dangerous criminals who are armed and threatening the lives of others > is one.   These "criminals" were threatening the lives of NO ONE -- they were fired  on FIRST, according to a number of accounts.  > In this case they used sub lethal force.   Wrong.  Firing a gun at someone is lethal force, even if no one is hit. Of course, they DID hit AND kill people.  > The children were held hostage. The adults were wanted variously for murder > and conspiracy to murder.  You are silly.  There are no such warrants in existence, Phill.  > |>4)  It took hundreds of gov't agents with tax-funded cellular phones > |>    *ten minutes* to dial 9-1-1 for the fire department  > They should not have called the fire dept at all. There was no role > for them to play in a situation where those that might be rescued might > well shoot at them. Calling the fire dept meant that WACO was deprived > of a resource that might have been needed elsewhere should a situation  > where it could have been used arisen.  Thanks, Phill, for another example of that great socialist sensitivity. "Obey the government or die."  *PLONK* --
kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:  > tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) writes: >  >>Funny, but I've seen a LOT more than 10 or 15 seconds of that video, and >>I still think the police involved were guilty. I don't think there's any >>excuse they could POSSIBLY come up with that would make what they did >>OK. I don't care if Rodney King was satan himself, there's just no >>excuse. Now, whether they did it because he was black or they did it >>because they wanted to beat up on somebody they were arresting is >>another entirely separate question that I have insufficient information >>to make any kind of conclusion about. >  >  >        How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives o > n > 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?  Oh yeah, did you watch > the start of the video when King got UP out of his prone postion and charge > the cops?  Sorry, the video cuts both was when you sit and watch it start to > finish. >  >   I have to agree with you... the police may have carried it a bit too far but Rodney King was no angel either. And I don't think ANY guilty verdicts should have been returned. I'm sure you know why they handed down guilty verdicts on two of the officers. It's quite simple really, it was a compromise to avoid rioting in the places where minorities think it's right to riot. I hate to say this, but I would have liked to see them riot with everyone prepared. It would be open season if your skin was even slightly brown.  Hey, my motto is, you don't fuck with me or my stuff and you don't get killed. It's just that simple.  Tony  ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Anthony S. Pelliccio, kd1nr/ae    // Yes, you read it right, the  // -- system @ garlic.sbs.com          // man who went from No-Code    // -----------------------------------// (Thhhppptt!) to Extra in     // -- Flame Retardent Sysadmin       // exactly one year!            // ------------------------------------------------------------------- -- This is a calm .sig! --
In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes: >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.         I've read about more than a few of these programs that ran into problems in convincing parents to get their children immunized even when they were delivered to their doorstep.  (I don't know, maybe that sheet they have to be informed of about possible risks, side- effects, and bad reactions scares them.)
In article <15503@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:  >I've already posted results of a survey of homosexuals, that shows >how profoundly promiscuous homosexual men are.  Were.  In urban areas.
In article <C5Jv7A.7F7@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes: >The USA could go quite far to mend the bridges with  Iran. The people >there are rather pissed off because the USA first supported the Shah who >they loathed and then supported Saddam when he mounted an unprovoked >attack.  Hardly surprizing after the embassy hostage crisis but Iran is >meant to be the country run by unreasonable bigots not the USA so if there >is to be movement it would be easier for the USA to move. > >Phill Hallam-Baker  It is also widely stated (in non-mainstream sources) that the CIA had a large part in the overthrow of the popular (and popularly-elected) left-leaning Premier Mossadegh in 1953.  Is this widely recognized outside the U.S.?  (I have never seen it mentioned at all in mainstream U.S. media.)  How about within Iran?
In article <Apr.2.23.41.04.1993.607@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes: >In article <1pa6pt$63r@access.digex.com> hess@access.digex.com (Paul Hess) writes: >> that drag the US down and cause problems at home and abroad. >Rank balderdash!  America's reputation abroad has become tarnished >because of feckless and pusillanimous cowards who apparently do not >have the requisite gonads to stand up for American honor and dignity.      Don't be ridiculous, Kaldis. I suggest you give the "Ugly American" concept, which I can easily see you demonstrating, a good hard second look.  >> The American Way is not the ONLY way, it's not necessarally the BEST >> way, and it is incredibly arrogant to even think that. > >The American Way may not be the only way, and you may not consider it >to be necessarily the best way, but, by God, it's _OUR_ way and we're >going to stick with it!  If you can't go along with the program, then >perhaps you should consider moving elsewhere.      Dear God. Didn't this die out in the fifties with McCarthy and the blacklists?  >> I've spent quite a bit of time in different provinces of Canada and >> let me tell you, it is very refreshing to spend time with people who >> are not full of arrogant nationalism and empty patriotism. >That is exactly the _PROBLEM_ with Canadians!  They don't stand for >anything with certitude.      Didn't your mother ever teach you not to generalize? I am a Canadian, and I stand up for _too many_ things with _too much_ certitude.   >> The Canadians I know well enough to say this about, seem to have a >> great deal of pride in their provinces and their country, but they >> aren't blinded by flags and ideals like many Americans are. >Could this be because they are bereft of ideals?      Uh huh. This must explain the world reknowned, record low American crime rate. I see now, it's all becoming so clear to me.  >> Well, I've said too much, >Yes you have.      No he hasn't.  >> but I was so angered by your words that I felt I had to say something. >> Sorry to intrude. >You pipsqueak!  You mouse!  If you are sorry to intrude then why do >it?  Don't you have the courage of your convictions?  Hell, do you >even have any convictions to start with?  What kind of example of >manly dignity is this?  Sheesh!      Remarkable audacity and misguidance. What you take for your own courage, sir, is nothing more than simple loud-mouthedness coupled with unrestrained bragging.
Clayton Cramer wrote: : Lawrence C. Foard writes: : # #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.  Implying, no so tacitly, that homosexual men are more promiscuous than heterosexual men.  Interesting, especially in the wake of a news report last week about a group of high school seniors (heterosexual, I might add) who boasted monthly conquests of up to *67* girls *each*.  It seems that promiscuity is not limited to homosexuals.  This is a sad fact of life: no matter what you look for -- whether it  be homosexual promiscuity, racial discrimination, or sexual harassment -- you *will* find it.  Whether or not it actually exists where you're looking.
Clinton has backed off from the $16 billion jobs bill.  	Word is he's paring it down to the core: jobless benefits, money for creating full time jobs (ie, no summer jobs money).  	Chalk one up for holding the line on spending.
In article <Apr.17.06.54.41.1993.15825@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes: >In article <C5K5LC.CyF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes: > >> 1) So what? > >So this bolsters the contention that many homosexuals are liars.  So if this study is proved wrong then it proves that heterosexuals are liars? Unlike the propaganda spouted by the far right the ten percent figure was backed up by the best study available at the time. Its hardly certain that this new study is correct since it hasn't even been out for enough time for any double checking to happen.  >The Alan Guttmacher Institute, btw, is funded by Planned Parenthood, >so it hardly qualifies as a bastion of conservatism, or of "family >values".  Of course if they had found 10% then it would be invalid because it was funded by planned parenthood :)  >> 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... > >This preassumes that 2.5 million queers will show up on April 25th. >There won't be anywhere near that many.  Go ahead -- make my day -- >promote that number.  That way, it will surely be a much greater >embarrassment and slap in the face to homosexual activists when the >crowds are much smaller.  Even if its "only" one million the point still stands. Even getting 1/6th of a given population in one place would be unprecidented.  If even 1 million show up in DC it will raise serious doubts about this study, or indicate a resolve unprecidented in human history.  >BTW, have you noticed that even Slick Willie isn't going to be in town >that day?  He isn't the target of the march, nor do presidents often speak at civil rights marchs (of course it would have been nice). However the republicans and conservative democrats would do well to take notice.   >> --  >> ------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               . >> \    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . . >>  \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . . >              ^^^^^^^^^^^ >>   \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . . > >The above smacks of antiHispanic bigotry.  This is quite amusing. Obviously you know nothing about the history of math.
In article <dasmith.734719640@husc.harvard.edu> dasmith@husc8.harvard.edu (David Smith) writes: >Granted, the simple fact of holding down a job will improve these kids' chances >of getting another job in the future, but what inner city kid would want to hold >down just one more minimum wage job when there is so much more money to be made >dealing drugs?    What suburban kid would want to hold down a minimum wage job when there is so much more money to be made dealing drugs?  Yet, somehow, surburban kids do hold down minimum wage jobs.  So do inner city kids, when give the chance.  Any reason you think that inner city kids are incapable of doing legitimate work?
In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes... >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.  I don't know where YOU live, but this is not the case nationawide. Perhaps your state or municipality has put together the funds to  do so, but in my area and most areas where I know people, immunizations cost $$$.  Sorry to shatter your stereotypes.
In an article rick@howtek.MV.COM (Rick Roy) writes: > > [This is called NotQuotingTheEntireArticle (tm).  Try it...] > >which you refer, please note that many religious beliefs evolved from >basic, pragmatic principles of day-to-day living. If we had lived  Certainly many religious beliefs seem to be positive principles for everyday living.  Indeed, I believe it is the Islamic religion which avoids alcohol (I apologize if I name the wrong religion) and that is certainly a physical positive in many respects.  However, this proves nothing.  Just because something is a "basic, pragmatic principle of day-to-day living" TODAY doesn't mean it evolved from the same.  Especially those beliefs and (mostly) positions held based on interpretations of the religion.  Religious beliefs come from many places but most will be backed up (after many levels of arguments) to "Because that's how it is written." or "God says..."  Now I'm not faulting that but that is not a basic, pragmatic principle as you mean it in this context.  It is a belief based on faith, which by definition is not necessarily backed up by logic.  Faith is a given.  God is a absolute truth when arguing from religion.  Also, many religions would reject your thesis that their beliefs simply come from these day-to-day principles.  In summation, if you wish to use religious arguments be prepared to back them up with "It says in the [fill in religious document here]," because most religions (things which at least I denote as religions) are based on the writings of or teachings of [fill in religious figure here].  NOTE: Religion is a charged topic and if I offended anyone regarding 	  my references to God, I apologize.  Please insert your own 	  sensible references, the argument should apply to nearly all 	  religions.
In article <15446@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:  > Elf Sternberg:  >> But if less than 10% of the population is gay, what can we say about >> these people who don't identify as gay but have demonstrated gay >> potential.  Obviously, a large chunk of these people *chose* (or, more >> accurately, were forced to choose by force of religion and social >> sanction) to put those feelings aside, to be heterosexual.  >> Obviously, Cramer and Kaldis fall into this category.  > I can't speak for Kaldis; but "force of religion and social sanction" > played no part in my sexual preferences.  Neither had much influence on > me as a teenager.  You might as well have.  You certainly would not have been in error if you would have.
In article <15464@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: >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. > But you stated that this study was presented in a very accurate and dependable way.  This is confusing to the issue.  And if you read this title it implies that; gay sex (homosexual sex) activities are low compared to the general population that they surveyed.   ># #    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.            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ># #									      >Actually, 2% were either exclusively homosexual, or bisexual.  You aren't >readiing very carefully.  Well let us quibble- look at the above statement that you posted, I have marked it with '^^^^^^', IT STATES THAT 1% ARE EXCLUSIVELY HOMOSEXUAL- IT STATES 2% ARE OR HAVE ENGAGED IN HOMOSEXUAL SEX.  And please not the use of adjective here "HOMOSEXUAL SEX".  Now I stated that if we take 1% as homosexal this is a valid viewpoint.
>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. >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.  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. >--   Isn't is funny how someone who seems to know nothing about homosexuality  uses a very flawed (IMHO) source of information to pass jusgement on all  homosexual and bisexual men.  It would seem more logical to say that since  the heterosexual group of men is larger then the chances of promiscuity  larger as well.  In my opinion, orientation has nothing to do with it.  Men are men and they all like sex.  I am a gay male.  I have had sex three  times in my life, all with the same man.  Before that, I was a virgin.  So... whose promiscuous?  Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have no morals.  Just because  someone is heterosexual doesn't mean they do.  Look at the world....   Statistics alone prove that most criminals are by default hetero...  Look closely at the person, not the group.  All flames will be ignored.  :)  Later,