waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In <1993Apr16.200354.8045@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:   >>1) So what?  >So there are less gays, then the gays claim.  >>Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners.... >>  >I was wondering why I wasn't getting laid.  Your bad English?  (See quote above.)   >Actually, I bet you more gay/bi men are as not as promiscuous as gay men,  >because more of them could have the "option" of living a straight life, and  >with social pressures, probably would at least try.  You'd lose that wager, if the supporting argument were part of it.  >Did you know that is is a fact that homosexuality was comparatively high in  >Hitler's storm troopers (SA) before he came to power.  I wonder if they got to  >put the triangles on themselves......  Did you know that Hitler himself was a devout Christian?  And heterosexual?  --Drywid
In <15440@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:  >In article <C5nAvn.F3p@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >> In article <philC5n6D5.MK3@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >> #Tells you something about the fascist politics being practiced .... >>  >> Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism.  >>  >> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia  >When you force people to associate with others against their will, >yes.  We're having to associate with you against our will.  This is fascism!   You don't have to associate with anyone against your will.  Go live in a cave.  We won't miss you.  Drewcifer
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:  >In <1993Apr21.094001.6254@titan.ksc.nasa.gov> rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin) writes:  >|In article <26VB3B9w164w@cellar.org>, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) says: >|The word some sums it up, alot of scientist have concluded that without a >|doubt Global Climate will/is occur(ring) and should be dealt with by source  >Without a doubt some warming will occur. However there is mucho disagreement >on how much warming will occur. >The original doomsdayers were claiming 10 to 15 degrees Farhenheit. Lately >they have been saying 3-5 degrees. Newer studies hint that it might be less >than a degree.  Of course, then there's the other side. An article in yesterday's Atlanta Journal stated that there are many scientists who have misgivings that the  data being used to determine whether or not global warming is occuring is faulty. The point that the article made is that all long term temperature dataa collected has been in urban areas, and that any heat rise can be attributed to the growth and urbanization of the area. They called it the "asphalt temperature trend". We have no real long term data on remote areas, such as the middle of the Amazon rain forest, or the top of Mt. Everest or the Gobi desert, for that matter. An accompanying article mentioned that a group of scientists at NASA had developed a method for using a satellite to collect temperature data globally, and that preliminary results showed a slight downward trend attributed to the Mt Pinatubo eruption. It went on to say that even with the current downward trend, there appeared to be *NO* change in global temperatures using trend prediction methods for at least the next 50 years.  I can quote the article verbatim if you like..
In article <1r7bh0$cc2@nwfocus.wa.com>, turmoil@halcyon.com (Tim Crowley) writes:  |>goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes: |> |>>In article <16BB87EF1.V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes) writes: |>>>  |>>>Yes we've heard that the survivors are now saying that. We've also |>>>seen the videotape which shows that the fire started in two or |>>>three different places which weren't near the tank. |> |>>    I have not seen the tape on CNN.  Which network did you see it on? |> |>I saw the film on CNN *as* it happend. It was clear from that tape that |>the fire started in ONE location. Right where the tank was attacking, |>and then had pulled back.   No, this is not true. the CNN pictures show two sites clearly and a third is barely distinguished.   If you have a tape you should note that there are two towers at either end of the building, a big one and a little one. What appears to be merely a  long shot of the big tower with the tank in front is in fact the little tower. You can tell beacuse the flag in the foreground switches sides from the right of the picture to the left.  The third site is visible as the flames clearly come from a point obscured by the small tower. You need a tape and a good slow motion video to see this.
In article <1pkvcl$nu0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes: > >In a previous article, riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs) says: > >>so much land, and in the long run, we have a zero sum game going. Someone, >>somewhere, is going to make a killing from nosediving real estate >>markets. The worst thing to do is panic. The best thing you can do is >>to ride out deflation to the end. It hurts, but you're better off  >>than if you sell short and donate to someone else's inheritance. > > >      Sad.  Paradigm Shift is coming, chum. >     Ride the WAVE!  	I don't believe in the "Wave Theory".  > >     " There's only so much land ".   Oh, God, is this Mike Zimmer's >    replacement?!  	My mother-in-law, who grew up in Germany, doesn't believe in  money at all. She started out as a real estate developer, and now raises horses. She keeps telling me that inflation is coming back, and to lock in my fixed rate mortgage as low as possible.  > >     Here, let me spell it out for you. > >     Can you spell TWO TRILLION DOLLAR BANK BAILOUT?  	Maybe you'd like to invest in some foreign currency.  	Which one would you guess to come out on top ?  	(Sigh - speculators never learn.)    Bill R.  --
I heard the other day that Rush has gotten together with Tammy Faye Baker.   They were crawling in bed the other night and Rush's feet brushed up against   Tammy's legs.  "God! your feet are cold" she said.  Rush looked back at here   and said, "Tammy honey, I told you when we're alone you can just call me   Rush."       Ba dump Bump!  pishhhhh
In article <1993Apr17.161720.18197@bsu-ucs> 00cmmiller@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu 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?  Oh yeah, did you watc h >> 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. > >sorry, i didn't see him "charge" the cops.  i saw him trying to get away >from people who were beating him.  i guess we each see what we want to >see. >candace miller  I guess your view of the video from your sofa gives you a better view than the cops involved?  I guess one can see what one wants to see after all.
The Waco/Whacko Bar-B-Q caused me to remember an official explanation from the Vietnam War.  The 90s, liberal version is:      "It was necessary to incinerate the children in order to save them."
In article <C5sno8.H5p@boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes: >In article <1993Apr20.153450.27407@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: >>Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for >>their deaths.  She should resign immediately.  She should have  > >Aside from the fact that i disagree w/ you, she did offer to resign and the >president rejected the offer.  She was willing to take responsibility, and                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   Which is a helluva lot more than any Republican attorney general ever did!   BTW, why all the crocodile tears over wasting a few religious nuts, who  wanted to be wasted anyway?  We just got back from wasting a few hundred  thousand religious nuts over in the Middle East, and everybody cheered!!
civl097@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:  >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  >--   >Brandon Hutchison,University of Canterbury,Christchurch >                  New Zealand CHEERS Brandon.  That's the best suggestion I have seen that.  !!!
In article <onrC5xzu4.IIF@netcom.com> onr@netcom.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes: >[...] >of course the last MOW was the same thing but [the media] ignored us. >I guess that was just labor pains. >perhaps they will ignore us again, in which case we will come in >even largeer numbers next time.  Local media hasn't said much, if anything, about the MOW.  Also, when I called a straight friend in Arlington to tell him I would be on his doorstep this weekend, he didn't know anything at all about the march. This is a gay-sympathetic person who notices things like this.  I thought it was strange that he was unaware of what was happening.  It made me wonder just how much coverage is getting to "mainstream" America.
In article <930316.144130.lynn@pcgeo23> lynn@granitt.uio.no (Malcolm Lynn) writes: > >this is a tesrt >s  Of your spelling, eh?  			Dr Zippy.
rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes... >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?  	The fact is that Koresh and his followers involved themselves 	in a gun battle to control the Mt Carmel complex. That is not 	in dispute. From what I remember of the trial, the authories 	couldn't reasonably establish who fired first, the big reason 	behind the aquittal.                    _____  _____                   \\\\\\/ ___/___________________   Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________ ________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/ \_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/     \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/                 \_ / /__________/                  \/____/\\\\\\  			 \\\\\\
In article <Apr.20.10.27.01.1993.9195@romulus.rutgers.edu>   kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:  > I wouldn't worry too much about it, though.  We are starting to find > out how politically impotent homosexuals really are.  (Non-relevant > stuff deleted) and coming this Saturday they are going to > wind up with _TREMENDOUS_ egg on their face when, I submit, no more > than perhaps 35,000 queers will show up in Washington while they are > promising crowds in the millions.  And most of the ones who will be > there will look like ACT-UP and Queer Nation, not the guy working in > the next cubicle.  As if that's really going to play in middle > America.  How wrong you will be.  I participated in the last National March on   Washington (MOW) for LesGayBi rights (Oct 11, 1987) - with a turnout of   about 750,000 people - and we didn't have alot pissing us off at the time.    The big issue was the AIDS crisis, but we weren't being slapped around   quite as bad as we are now.  This time its AIDS, and Equal Rights,  and   the Military Squabble.  And this MOW has been in the planning for YEARS   whereas the last one was pulled together in a relatively short time.  The   last MOW was the largest ever on D.C. and you can bet we are going to   exceed that by a long shot.  I truly believe we will exceed the 1.0   million goal the MOW committee has always had set for this event.
>>papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) said: >> >>> Sorry.  Reading this newsgroup I can't help but get the impression of >>> frothing at the mouth lunatics. I get a lot of: >> >>[snip] >> >>> c) Constitution worshiping "It's right because it's in the >>> constitution" As if the constitution wasn't framed by men, centuries >>> ago in a totally different world.  We have three options with respect to the Constitution:  1. Abide by it. 2. Duly amend it. 3. Abandon those parts of which a majority disapproves.  Of course, since the whole point of the Constitution is to restrain the will of the majority, and since even in unfettered democracy we have  nothing to fear from minorities, #3 amounts to abandoning the  Constitution altogether.  Which will it be?  --- Mark Pundurs
In article <C50puL.CL4@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes: >In <1993Apr2.182942.22445@husc3.harvard.edu> spanagel@husc11.harvard.edu (David Spanagel) writes: >   >|Furthermore, what are the specific charges against the four LAPD officers?  >|Which civil rights or laws are they accused of violating?  > >I believe it is a general charge, that is no specific right is mentioned.   I don't think that this is accurate. I believe, and could be wrong, that there IS a specific right allegedly to have been violated, like the 14th or due process or whatever.  >|What about double jeopardy? Has there been any concern that a verdict >|against Koon, et al. might be overturned upon appeal because they're being tried >|again for the same actions? (I thought I heard something on the news about  >|this.) > >The SS has previously ruled that since the seperate governments were in >essence seperate sovereigns, then double jeopardy does not apply. > >(If this is true, then could defendents also be tried under city and >county governments?) > >This mornings paper said that the ACLU has decided to reinstate its >opposition to this kind of thing. They had earlier suspended their >opposition while they examined the King case. There might be hope >for the ACLU after all. >--   Double jeopardy does not apply, but not for the reasons you quote. Double jeopardy states that a person may not be tried twice on the same charge. However, the police are not on trial for the crime of excessive force or assault. They are NOW on trial for the DIFFERENT crime of violating Mr. King's civil rights.   AS for the city and county or state trying you more than once,  it most likely will not happen. This is because cities and states have separate laws governing behaviour. For example, in some states, it is an offence to carry marijuana, but not a city offence. Also, I think murder is against federal, but not some state laws.
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.
The operation going on in Somalia is a peacekeeping/peaceenforcement       operation where force may be used.  It is not a war.  It is also legal       under international law, which is higher than US law.  The operation       is occuring under the ageis of the United Nations.  Can't get a higher       authority than that on this earth.
In article <16BB1B92B.DAK988S@vma.smsu.edu.Ext> DAK988S@vma.smsu.edu writes: >You think that you all have it bad....here at good ol' Southwest Missouri >State U., we have 2 parties running for student body president.  There's the >token sorority/fraternity faces, and then there's the president and vice >president of NORML.  They campaigned by handing out condoms and listing >their qualifications as,"I listen really well."  It makes me sick to have >a party established on many of the things that are ruining this country like >they are.  I think I'll run next year.:(  Well, a student body president can't exactly campaign on the stand that he's "tough on crime".  Their job is to listen to what people want and fund things that make sense.  Condoms and marijuana aren't exactly the worst things to have available either...
In article <C5ovG2.J24@magpie.linknet.com>,  neal@magpie.linknet.com (Neal) said:  > My views are out of experiences when I was a police officer in a large > metropolitan area, and of a citizen. Unless people account for their > behavior, and for the behavior of their immediate community, nothing > will improve.  Wait a minute.  I agree with you that people have to take responsibility for their own behavior (I assume that's what you meant by the word "account"), but also for "the behavior of their immediate community"?  First of all, how "immediate" are you talking about, and secondly, I have a lot of trouble with any theory of social behavior or justice which charges anyone with the duty of taking responsibility for or accounting for the actions of a different person...
In article <765445d3219144t87@infoserv.com>,  jamesdon@infoserv.com (James A. Donald) writes... >The tax protesters are legally correct, but they are put in jail anyway.  Hello?  What the Sloan decision means is that the tax protestors  were wrong.  >The weakness of the governments legal position is shown by the fact that when >someone protesting tax or gun laws on legal grounds gets a federal jury trial >(very rare) the feds blatantly stack the jury, with the same old faces turning >up time after time.  Demonstrate, please!  The rules of procedure make this very  unlikely.  >However Teel should have mentioned that though his advice is legally sound, if >you follow it you will probably wind up in jail.  FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY  Which makes it legally unsound.  If I were representing Mr. Teel,  I'd try a procedural approach if I could find one, or recommend  he plea-bargain.  He's setting himself up to be in hot water.  						Daniel Reitman  HOW NOT TO WRITE A DEED  One case involved the construction of a conveyance to grantees "jointly, as  tenants in common, with equal rights and interest in said land, and to the  survivor thereof, in fee simple. . . . To Have and to Hold the same unto the  said parties hereto, equally, jointly, as tenants in common, with equal rights  and interest for the period or term of their lives, and to the survivor thereof  at the death of the other."
In article <1r7tjnINNgcu@bigbird.williams.edu> 96csw@williams.edu (Walter "Gib" Gibson) writes: [Motor-Voter stuff] > >	My friend, after the election, brought up the point that it >would enable more people to vote, however, since it makes it easier to >get to the place of registration.  He brought up the analogy that if >there were only ONE place to vote, say, in Alaska- would it be >excessive and wasteful to petition to have more places to vote?  This >is a similar idea- a way to encourage more people to vote by making it >more easily accessible.  I, not knowing where I stood, played devil's >advocate and said - well, would you have the taxpayer's money go to >busing for those people that have trouble making it to DMV, then? >Where does the right to vote merge with the right to vote easily? >Where should we draw the lines?           Well, there does have to be a line.  And to be honest, extending voter registration to DMVs is hardly analogous to having only one place for registration in Alaska and opening a new one in Atlanta.  More is  not always better once you've passed a certain point.  >	My friend said that that is obviously an extreme and that >actually the motor-voter bill would SAVE money because no longer would >the city have to pay someone to sit in the town hall and spend all >his/her time filing those things- they'd just be at the push of a >button or the filling out of an X at DMV.  So I (actually someone >else, but there's no need to confuse this anymore) countered again >saying that wouldn't congress, *as always*, get exorbitent budgets and >fund committees to orchestrate and oversee the implementation.... the >argument went back and forth forever- ranging from whether or not it's >BETTER to have more people voting, whether that is even relevant, >etc.... > >	just looking for some more opinions.  Anybody got 'em???         I thought the Motor Voter bill passed.         In any case, my experiance with Tennessee's voter registration system (which you can register with by mail, by the way) is that nobody who is interested in voting is being denied access to registration. All it requires is just the tiniest bit of interest on the registrant's part and thinking about the election once in the eleven months prior to it.  (Once you register it's good unless you miss for years worth of elections of move.)         It's easy to register now.  I simply don't see the value in going out and trying to get people registered who don't have enough gumption to even write and have the proper forms sent to them.   How can we expect responsible decisions out of these people?
In article <1993Apr19.141933.29924@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland. chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes: >In article <C5pEAy.M15@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer  kyle cramm) writes: >> >>      The entire second trial was about race, Ted.  I don't feel compelled to >>discuss Mr. King's racial background, but had Mr. King been white there would >>not have been a second trial.  You probably are saying that the beating would >>not have occurred if he were white, but that is an extremely difficult call >>to make.  It is possible the case, but not definately. >> >One could easily point out that the jury decided that this "extremely >difficult call" could be made, which is why the two of the defendants >were found guilty.  One could also make some interesting observations on >our system of justice, where the men were not guilty of excessive force, >but guilty enough to have violated his civil rights by use of the >(non-existant) excessive force. >--  It is also interesting to note that Powell (and maybe Koons) were found guilty of aiding and abetting the deprival of King's civil rights...but, two others who also beat King and all the others who watched were not. Go figure?  Can you say sacraficial lambs?  Can you say appeal?  >John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com) >Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies >Midland TX
In article <Ufk_Gqu00WBKE7cX5V@andrew.cmu.edu> Ashish Arora <ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu> 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.  Yes, sadly, this is true. The primary reason, and the essence of the details that you are seeking, is that the Grahm-Rudman budget controls were working.  In fact, they were working so well that unless the feds did something, they were going to have to start cutting pork. So Bush and the Democrats got together in a Budget Summit and replaced Grahm-Rudman with the now historic Grand Compromise in which Bush "consented" to raise taxes in exchange for certain caps on spending increases.  As it turned out, the taxes killed the Reagan expansion and the caps on spending increases were dispelled by Clinton in his first act as President (so that he could create his own new plan with more tax increases).  The result is that Clinton now HOPES to reduce the deficit to a level  ABOVE where it was when Reagan left office.