HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:22:56 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      re: homosexuality

 KAT,

 You've surpassed Moses!  Eleven rules, and still going!  Incredible.

 Your last rule, #11, implies that my position on homosexuality has
 something to do with prejudice.  This is not true.  For your claim of
 prejudice to be true, my position would mandatorily come from an
 inadequate basis in fact.  The scripture, I'm afraid, does not lend
 support to your rambling.

 ---Robert

 "Visit L.A., it's a riot!"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:54:55 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      authoritative opinions

The Clinton College plan is stupid.
Why not just make the high schools effective?

Why does anyone think that another two years
mandatory school is going to be something
different than what we have?

And here's one way to make high schools more
effective:  make an unpleasant alternative.
Make the threat of expulsion or suspension real.
That works for the private schools.

And here's why everyone who was eager to jump
on the "I went to a special advanced program
in school, too, and didn't do any work, but I'm
still really smart and got great SATs and just
wanted y'all to know that" bandwagon felt that
their special placement programs were largely
worthless.  Because those programs became
playgrounds for the teachers - everyone with
a new theory about how to teach kids experimented
there.  If the programs had just taught the same
stuff at a faster pace and more rigorously, everyone
would have benefitted more, I believe.

And while it may be bad to have dumb kids separated
from bright kids, it only takes one dumb kid who
can't keep up and thus feels the need to be disruptive
to keep 19 other bright kids from learning.

Again, studies have shown that for the average and
less able student, education is improving - but this
is coming largely at the expense of the brightest.

Education is an investment - treat it that way.

                                       -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:58:47 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Potty Training

>The reason that there are no shared bathrooms is that the vast majority
>of people do not want them.  Am I spoiling everybody's fun?
>
>Chris Morrison
>CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet

Where are your poll results?  How do you know what the vast majority of
people want?  If it cost less in taxpayer dollars to provide single
bathrooms in all government buildings, I would certainly support it.

And yes, you are spoiling my fun.  I'd like to see what women write on
the bathroom walls.
                                                   ---roger
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 19:45:26 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

Jamie:

I think you would be hard put to convince the Court that defining
marriage as a union of two individuals of the opposite sex is
discriminatory.

I think they would consider your argument, well, "facetious."

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:32:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: what to do in a world that trivializes intelligence

Somewhere along the line I learned to ignore them all and just go ahead on
my own.  Unfortunately, this made me anti-social and I ended up dropping
out (though in 1964, I started marching against the Vietnam War, and that
had something to do with it.  Interesting sidelight:  my high school was
at first going to suspend me for handing out antiwar leaflets around
school, but after I got through talking to the principal, they only
made me agree not to put them on teachers' bulletin boards without asking
them first.)

I think if students in high school go to see the teacher after class
and don't disrupt things too much, they will be able to get as much
extra work and help as they want.  But they have to actually like what
they are learning, and study for fun rather than to get better grades,
get into a more prestigious college, or a better-paying job.

Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 11:23:20 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: what to do in a world that trivializes intelligence
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:57:25 -0500 <ANTHLAL@UMNACVX> said:

>isolating the brighter kids in classes of their own tends to deprive
>other students of role models in their own classes.  it is my experience
>that tracking students in this way reinforces their opinions of themselves,
>and that's not necessarily such a positive thing. ("i'm in the slow class,
>so i must really be as stupid as they tell me.")

Unfortunately, classes only move as fast as the slowest student(s)...
and this seems to bore the brighter children to no end, and only
increases their dropout rates...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: getting blood from a turnip
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:22:37 GMT

I never have any library fines.

--Jimbo 'the most moral man alive'

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:20:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Interest Rates

The Swedish government said it was trying to send a message to those
people who were dumping the Swedish currency.  They didn't really expect
to maintain this rate for very long.

Chris Morrison
CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:23:43 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

Hello Dustan:

As you said:

> My money in the longer term is that the treasure will be water.

You may be more on the right track than we know.  In the northwestern
part of the US, there has been no considerable amount of moisture whether
in the form of snow or rain in Idaho, Montana and especially California
for at least 5 or 6 years. I am not so sure about Washington or Oregon.
My father lives in Idaho Falls and has not seen rain or snow since he
had moved there in 1986.   The mountains near his home have had no snow
peaks for 4 years, and the reservoier not far from his home has only 1/10th
of the normal amount of water.  However, he does have plenty of smoke from
fires out in the western part of the state.

Even our Ogallala underground water supply that stretches from South Dakota
through Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and into Texas is becoming drier.

It is not a good picture at all.

Sue Clark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:46:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Alleged Overpoulation (was Re: let's rephrase the question)

>>    Actually, the problem for now is distribution of the resources, but
>>  by most accounts, the world poputlation, if it grows at the present rate,
>>   will exceed our resources (which, of course, are decreasing as they are
>>  used) early in the next century.
>
>And you know just the socio-political systems to rectify this?


    No. Just trying to identify the problem.  Any suggestions would
  be appreciated.

G. Racz
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Bosnia conflict
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:10:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Another thing that makes it good for liberals:  it was a Lost Cause, fought
against an Evil Foe, in the Interests of the Human Race.  They love that sort
of thing.

PS-- You do have to have a good deal of respect and admiration for the
Lincoln Brigade.  They put their lives on the line for what they vbelieved.

PPS.  Did you guys hear?  The head of the Shining Path has been captured.  The
only bad thing about this is what they will probably try to do to retaliate,
and I wonder if they can keep him.  This guy has no saving graces like
Guevara did, he's a real creep!

Also the Democratic Party is in the lead in Thailand, but they don'y have
anywhere enough votes for an absolute majority, so there's going to be
another coalition, and the army will still be involved.  The Thai army has
its fingers in every pie in southeast Asia, wherever there are shady dealings
they are involved.  The only thing they can't do is defend the country from
external enemies, only from its own citizens.

Chris
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:48:35 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
>
>Jamie:
>
>Okay, let's try to explain it then.  My statement: "If the state defines
>'marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, your argument
>[of discrimination] is wrong."
>
>You claim that the marriage laws discriminate against homosexuals.
>No, they don't.  If "marriage" is definitionally a legal union between
>a man and a woman, then homosexuals are not discriminated against, any
>more than men are discriminated against when insurance coverage
>includes the condition of pregnancy (a condition to which men are
>not subject).

Sorry, that's just wrong.

Putting the discriminatory part into the definition doesn't change anything.

Suppose Alabama (just for example) decided to define "marriage" as a
legal union between two members of the same race. Suppose it then
denied that any union between a black man and a white woman (or between
a white man and a black woman) was not a legal marriage and would not
be recognized as such by the state. That would be discriminatory, of
course, and it would violate the equal protection provision of the
14th amendment.

As I've said before, the important question is this. If a law has
a discriminatory effect, and there is prima facie reason to believe
that the discrimination is an attempt to install bigotry into the law,
then, Can the state show a compelling interest that is advanced by
the law in question? (And if the case reaches the highest tier, is it
plausible that some other way of achieving the goal, one that would
not disadvantage the group in question, cannot be used?)

Jamie

>Ya just gotta play by the rules.

And one of the rules is the 14th amendment.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: where carolyn left off
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:33:00 GMT


ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET writes:
>If one side grants that homosexuality is immoral, there is still *some* room
>for debate, but not much.

I disagree.  I think that it is perfectly possible for us to conclude
that some activity is immoral while still having plenty to discuss about
what we ought to do POLITICALLY about it.

I think that watching too many bad movies is immoral.  I think that
smoking cigarettes is immoral.  I think that joining a racially
discriminatory club is immoral.  However, I think that none of these
activities should be illegal.

This is a point which many of our Christian discussants seem to have
missed.  To hold that an activity ought to be legal is not the same
thing as morally condoning the activity itself.  And to hold that some
activity is immoral is not the same thing as advocating laws against it.

This is why I am perplexed by the repeated references to homosexuality
being 'a sin' or 'a perversion'.  Suppose that it is.  Nothing directly
follows from that about the _legality_ of the activity.  Note well that
I say that nothing *directly* follows.  There surely CAN be ethical
considerations upon which laws are founded.  But I think that advocating
a law against some activity requires considerably more than simply
showing that the activity is immoral.

--Jimbo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 10:38:03 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The Virtue of Rationality

Chris:

You are right.  I suppose the town fathers would have had him put in the
stocks as a gossip for going before the community before taking the
matter before the church.  :-)

Of course, in this, we are all sinners of the same stripe.  (I'm doing
it right now.)

See ya,

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:42:37 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

Missy:

Sorry, I do support competition, but I don't think
that private inherently means better.

I personally think public is generally better, but
we need to diversify the types of schools we have
in the public education system.

Not everyone is cut out for college.  I attended
a high school, where the emphasis was on agriculture
and business.  This was good because most of the
students were children of farmers or planned to
go to vocational school.

It wasn't the ideal school for me.  I wanted to
go to college and pursue a career in academia.

I generally support the German school system, where
students go to the school designed to ready them for
the career they want.  For some this means minimal
education and then an apprenticeship.

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK (Dunstan_Vavasour)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Interest Rates
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:23:32 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

Chris:
>The thing about the interest rates being low is that they're really high
>in Germany and this is what caused the dollar to drop against the mark, and
 ^^^^^^^^^^

and by association in the ERM, across the whole of Europe. Why we all
have to be clobbered for domestic German reasons escapes me.

Dunstan - never wanted to go into the ERM in the first place.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:30:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: NEA et al.

I'm in favor of keeping all of them, maybe making them a little bit more
open to public view as far as their decisions and the processes that they
go about to reach them are concerned.  I think they're a good investment.

                               Chris Morrison
                               CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 10:05:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      response to Brni

Brni:

Yes, you're employer can fire you for any reason he chooses, including firing
you becuase you voted.  Actually (to satisfy Jamie), I'm arguing that your
employer OUGHT to be able to fire you.  I'm pretty sure such practice would
violatate some law somewhere, but my response would be to repeal that law.

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:21:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

Can we assume that those 50+ percent of Christians all agree on moral codes?
They do seem to have many different opinions on abortion, divorce, celibacy
for clergy, etc. etc. etc.

Chris Morrison
Who was wondering if Kerry was a male or female.

Disregard the last sexist remark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:34:55 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Using deadly force against dead horses

>> >I find it interesting that people are concerned about Joe Blow blowing
>> >away a burglar going for Joe's TV in Joe's "castle", but few blink at
>> >armed armored car and bank guards.  Said guards don't have guns to
>> >protect themselves so much as they have guns to raise the stakes of
>> >robbery, much of which consists of making said protection necessary.
>> >This is seen as a good thing.
>
>Do Brinks guards or Pinkertons have any more license to use deadly force
>than the average citizen?  Certainly a carry permit alone doesn't let
>you use a handgun in any way that you would not be allowed to use a
>rifle.

Legally, they don't have any greater license in the same situation.
In fact, police aren't supposed to have significantly greater license
either.  (We know that police get away with more, I "credit" their
relationship with DAs, and I suspect that Brink's guards get some of
the same slack, but that's a separate issue.)

>Perhaps the weapons are simply an acknowledgement that these are people
>who are more likely to be in a situation where thay may need them for
>self-defense.

It's not that simple.  They carry to CREATE situations where they're
justified in using lethal force.  The rest of us don't get away with
that.

If someone steals your car and attacks you with it as part of their
get-away, you're justified in using deadly force to end that attack.
However, if they're driving away, any use of deadly force would be in
defense of property.

The Brinks boys basically jump in front of the car being driven away,
which creates an "attack" that they can then respond to with deadly
force.  It's not unlike police tactics which turn non-compliance into
an attack so that they can then go up the force continuum.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: discrimination
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:26:13 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

Robert writes: 
>  You are refusing to acknowledge the existence of *absolutes*.  There ARE such
>  things as right and wrong.  Our *new* way of thinking has no bearing on
>  things that are unchangeable.  We can all decide to believe the sky is pink,
>  but it doesn't make it true.

Surely you recognize that right-and-wrong is far more abstract a notion than
whether the sky [appears] blue or pink.  You can ask a whole lot of people and
have them all agree the sky is blue and you can take a spectroscopic reading a
find that the sky is ideed what we call blue.  But people disgree on a lot of
the specifics of right-and-wrong, such as on homosexuality, and even if you are
limiting yourself to xians reading their Scriptures, there is still some
difference of opinion (how many different sects are there?).  But even
consensus of human opinion and "scientific" data can be incorrect--e. g., the
world is not flat.  Right-and-wrong is a human construct, and even if there
were some absolute measure (RIGHT-AND-WRONG), that does not mean that your
particular interpretation is true absolutely or that you are even close.  Of
course, you have the right to your opinion, but _that_ is not an absolute.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is true.  Everything is permissible.    |             Kai Alexis Price
------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:59:56 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Mother of all election promises.

From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET

> News flash from Radio France:  President Mitterend has said that if there
> is a yes vote on Maastrecht he may resign.

Here is a president who is willing to sacrifice his presidency
to save his principle.  (I don't know the details so I am
speculating here.)

Reminds of another presidents who sacrifices any principle
to save his presidency.

"I'll do ANYTHING to get reelected."

> Chris Morrison

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Original_cc:  HOUSSAH5
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 12:46:00 +0200
From:         HOUSSAH5@EGAUCACS.BITNET
Subject:      Reply to Missy (and all interested) about the Bosnian conflict

Well well Missy. I think you just got straight to the point. You said
that "we are not the world's police force". Well, that is the way the
United states preferred to present itself to the world ever since the
fall of the former Soviet Union. Getting involved here and there around
the world, having the US fleet in the world's oceans, all that is a way
of saying: "Hey people, we are the good guys of this world." The US has
definitely assumed the role of Sheriff. Personally, I have no objections
about it, but if we choose to do it that way, let us do it properly.

-Gilbert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:37:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?\

>From: rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>

>        What makes God's moral code any better than anybody
>else's moral code.  (I suspect the answer is probably going to
>be that "God's moral code is the only right or correct moral
>code--everybody else is mistaken.)

Yeah, He only created the universe and everything in it.  Aside from that,
He's no smarter than you or me (Yes, I'm being sarcastic).

Can you say "hubris?"

>                                       Richard A. Fyfe
>                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:17:17 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?

Michael:

I'm sure the Founders would be quite pleased to see the level of
civility induced by their work in those who would make an idol
of the Constitution.

The first amendment says *Congress* shall make no law.  Congress shall
not *establish* religion (a la Church of England.)  However, to assume
that this requires an abandonment of the tenets of the Judeo-Christian
ethic on which the Constitution stands is to misunderstand both
theology and history.  As I've said, if the Founders had wanted a
government without a God, they would have created the *French* (instead
of the American) Revolution.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU