HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 23 Dec 92 11:08:08 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

A thug on the net "writes":
    >I will state that if a landlord cannot make a rational
    >argument or even a good emotional argument as to why he/she
    >won't rent to a particular person or persons, then they need
    >to be exposed and shown for what they are.

What a philosophy. If "it" doesn't like, "it" will expose the disliked
entity.

No live and let live here. No way.

Of course this is what Clayton and myself and a few others have benn
saying all along, along with the voters in Colorado (in a way).

Live by the sword, die by the sword. Or in this kind of case, refuse to
tolerate and accept another's person choices, and be prepared to have your
choices coerced too.

If homosexuals use methods like AB101 to force themselves into people's
lives, then they should not be outraged when, say, voters in Georgia
force themselves into homosexuals lives.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Cable TV: Disorganized Crime, Was: Re: dangerous group
Date: 31 Dec 92 22:19:38 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1992Dec30.181151.2798@island.COM>, by guido@island.COM (Guido Marx):

> Oh, you have an evil cable company in San Jose too ?  I just got my
> bill last night.  Viacom here in Marin was delighted to inform me
> that our bill just went up to $25.00 a month for basic service.
> In four years my cable bill has gone up 47%.  In that same time
> period, the general rate of inflation has gone up maybe 15%.  So
> they are going at 3 times the inflation rate.  Who do they think
> they are - a hospital ?  As soon as the niners win the Super-Bowl,
> I may just cancel my cable.  Any other ideas on what we can do to
> bite these guys back ?

Welcome to the world of free markets.  If I owned a cable
company, I too would do whatever it took to increase the
profits for my stockholders.  If a 10% rate hike meant a
5% decrease in subscribers, I would still have 5% more
revenue.  This is called "Life in the Big City" folks.

What can you do about it?  For one, stop pretending that
they are a monopoly.  There are many other sources of
information.  Still want to watch the tube?  The antenna
system that I put up in 1985 (antenna, rotator,mast, mast-
mounted pre-amp, feedline, lightning arrestor, guy wires,
etc.) cost no more than a year's worth of cable, and is
still working fine.  I get all of the stations from S.F.,
S.J., and Sacramento in my Santa Rosa home, it does not
cost me a dime, and I don't have to deal with those cable
system outages and contribute to RF leaking out through
el-cheapo connectors all over the place.

Gee whiz, maybe some governmental intervention could have
saved me from the trouble of getting up on the roof.  :-)
Hey guys, the Super Bowl party is at my house, and we can
even choose which channel to watch it on.

Cheers -- Mark
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Omnipotent ecologist speaks (Re: The lack of vision)
Date: 23 Dec 92 06:01:02 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

(An anonymous asshole writes)
    >>In article <1992Dec21.025449.10271@netcom.com>
    >>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>>2. "Acid rain shows minimal effects on crops and forests;
    >>>only a small number of lakes have been acidified" (such as
    >>>closely downwind of high sulfur large scale power generation
    >>>plant -- but then, that's why they tend to locate those
    >>>things in the desert).
    >>>
    >>>
    >Well I suppose all of the problems in Europe could just be
    >moved to the desert.
    >
    >Well to let you in on another secret, which may be of more
    >interest, since it involves private property, Ford and Nissan
    >have been making moves to combat the effects of acid rain on
    >the finishes of their cars. It appears that claims against
    >the companies for pitted or poor paint jobs is on the rise.

Well, some yahoo regurgitates the local eco-agit-prop that "acid rain is
duh, killing the forests", and when I call the turkey on it, "it" can't
admit that "it" was wrong.

So I guess now "it" resorts to "acid rain is killing the car finishes".

Oh sink me .....


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 06:33:31 GMT

In article <105536@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >No sir. The difference between us is that I have an open
    >mind, and yours is less open.
    >
    >>You state "I just don't want said landlord to believe that
    >>his irrational prejudices will go unchallenged via constant
    >>discourse.".
    >>
    >>That about sums it up -- you want to use force to change
    >>men's minds.
    >>
    >Since when is discourse "force"? Gee, silly me, I thought it
    >was persuasion.

Sorry, that was a sucker line. Then you do not support AB101, or any
other law, or part of a law, that would force a landlord to rent to
you, even if you were a homosexual and he didn't want to rent to
homosexuals?

Yes or no?


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: What DO they teach in kindergarten nowadays?
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:01:37 GMT

In article <1h9309INNofi@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
    >So can you document the opposite? Show us proof that this is
    >one of the few (if not the first) time you ever have admitted
    >to being wrong about something. You always document- with at
    >least one source, that is not sufficient for many of the
    >arguments you make.

This is really a gem. OK, here is the proof of all the times, other
than Maddi's recent little correcto-gasm, that I've been wrong:

			  "  "

I can't believe how stupid you are in public.

And, BTW, one documented source for what I believe is better than zero.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:38:05 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1992Dec29.053709.18258@netcom.com>, by phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone):

> Well, since I don't think that the paperwork you fill out on joining the
> military has a sexual preference section, or, if homosexuals were
> accepted, that there wouyld be such a section, and since we are not about
> to have homosexuals wear pinkl triangles, we still have the problem that
> as most men would be uncomfortable with homosexuals, there would be strong
> pressure to not come out. And that makes a blackmail situation.

Phil, do you really believe that "most men would be unconfortable
with homosexuals?"  I mean, you don't live in Northern Idaho.
Really, most of us are live and let live when it comes to the
sexuality of others.  There are gay people in just about every
occupation (including yours and mine), and that doesn't seem to
disrupt us too severely.

While I agree with you on most issues, using your logic above
would imply that many other groups of people would have trouble
"coming out."  Should we therefore ban these folks (e.g. members
of unpopular religious or other groups) from military service?
Your phobias (and mine as well) about various groups of people
shouldn't be the basis of governmental discrimination.

> Men, women, blacks do not have this problem because they effectively wear
> their "pink triangles" on their very persons. As an interesting side, I
> remember an early 1950's book I read (fact or fiction I don't remember)
> about a man who was very very light skinned black passing as white in
> OCS. Most of it was obvious and predictable, but the description of
> the tension and emotional problems was rather good.

I bet it was!  Have you read "Black Like Me" about a guy
who disguised himself as black and went back to the
community that he had lived in years earlier?  It was most
enlightening (no pun intended).  And then there was Eddie
Murphy's take off called "White Like Me."  Hilarious, but
then I stray...
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: pressure those nasty Bay Area cable companies!
Date: 2 Jan 93 04:23:58 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
|From article <1992Dec30.210516.27444@smsc.sony.com>, by markc@smsc.sony.com (Mark Corscadden):
|> 2)  Are you sick *enough* that you're interested in taking political
|>     action to force the offending companies to mend their ways?

|No, I'm sick of people suggesting governmental intrusion
|everytime a business does something that they do not like.

If cable companies were normal businesses, I'd agree with you.
But in every place I've gotten cable service, the cable provider
was a monopoly.  I couldn't punish one provider for bad service
by going to another one.  A political solution is possibly the
only one in this case.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Any respect I once had for Phil [Ngai], Phil [Ronzone], and Clayton 
[Cramer] has gone right down the toilet.  Libertarianism to them is an 
excuse to flaunt their own bigotry." --Ray Shea in *.politics 
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:34:24 GMT

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >
>
>Packwood, the boobhead, is initially charge by women with incidents that
>were all MORE than 10 years old. And what has he done so far? Well,
>a lot of pinching and some fondling. And the screams for his head mount,
>most politically motivated.

Phil, unless you learn to get your facts straight, do not get into
an argument with me.  The person you are thinking of is not Packwood
but Inouye.  The Packwood charges stem over 15 years and some are
recent.  Inouye is a Democrat, the charges are 10 years old, and
there is only one accuser.  There are now 15 Packwood accusers. 
Perhaps this is why they're not going after Inouye's head.  I don't
know.  But do not confuse the two.  You are prone to mix up facts
and I will not let you get away with it.

>I mean, WHY hasn't NOW gone after Ted Kennedy? Or Clinton for Flowers?

Because Clinton was never accused of harassing Flowers?

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:07:40 GMT

In article <105590@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >In article <1992Dec23.063331.15606@netcom.com>
    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>Sorry, that was a sucker line. Then you do not support AB101,
    >>or any other law, or part of a law, that would force a
    >>landlord to rent to you, even if you were a homosexual and he
    >>didn't want to rent to homosexuals?
    >>
    >>Yes or no?
    >>
    >No. I thought you already knew that. Perhaps you forgot.


Sorry -- there may be an ambiguity here.

YES, you DO support AB101-type laws?
             - or -
NO, you do NOT support AB101-type laws.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: David;'s challenge
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Phil Ronxone
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:34:07 GMT

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >
madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes: >   >
>    >Phil, I'm STILL waiting for you to support your claim that
>    >r.h.f. became PC after I started moderating it. This is the
>    >sixth request. Going to keep ignoring it?
>
>Hmm, I have asked you to send me the jokes posted since you took over.

Another falsehood.  You did no such thing.  You ignored each and
every request until this one.

>Out of the last 22 postings, 2 were both PC and not very funny, definitely
>not BT style at all. The Eagleburger one was the worst, given the assumptive
>PC opening line. It's kinda like "Raygun" statements. Anyway, than about
>10%. Worse yet, BT kept just about all the jokes posted in the state of
>"being funny" -- I generally chcukled at just about anything he posted.
>The chuckle quotient has been dropping since you took over.

Since the only support you've given is the "Eagleburger" joke, I
do believe you have failed do demonstrate your assertion.  Care to
explain how the Clinton/Kennedy joke could be called PC by any
stretch of the imagination?  (What does Ted Kennedy have that
Bill Clinton wishes he had?  A dead girlfriend)

Note also that the Eagleburger joke had the lowest rating of the 22
jokes.  If you don't like the joke quality, submit something better.
I don't write them.

>BTW - why haven't you admitted you were wrong on Michels yet? He STILL isn't
>charged with anything. Hell, to my knowledge, there isn't even any attempt
>on anyone's part to bring anything before a grand jury. Of course, Maddi,
>I guess you just want to have the hanging now and the trial later. Anything
>other than to admit you were wrong.

Another loaded question.  I haven't "admitted" being wrong because
I was not wrong.  You, however, were wrong.  Repeatedly.

   *  Sol Wachtler is not a Democrat, but a Republican
   *  Bob Packwood did not commit all accused assaults 10 years ago,
        that was Inouye
   *  Bob Packwood was rated highly by NOW and other feminist groups
        yet you claim he's being strung up for being "non-PC"
   *  r.h.f. is not PC.  R.h.f. is merely r.h.f.  From the complaints
        I get about jokes offensive to lesbians, Somalis, African-
        Americans, and gay men, I can assure you I'm offending
        everyone equally.

You have a really bad case of projection, Phil.  Get help
before you explode.

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:38:14 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows

In article <13713@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Why are homosexuals such lying stupid scum?

It is the same principle that causes heterosexuals to be truthful,
intelligent, clean, and wholesome creatures. Thank Gawd that at least
ninety-six percent (your figure) of our human population is so
wonderful. It is no wonder that everything works so well.
-- 
 John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
 john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 13:29:37 PST

In <1992Dec22.195947.18565@netcom.com>, Phil Ronzone writes:

>In article <92357.38599.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LM
>    >One of the primary arguments used by the "anti-gay" forces
>    >(for lack of a better term) is that heterosexuals will feel
>    >uncomfortable around someone who is openly gay. Well, yes,
>    >that's true. Some people will undoubtedly feel uncomfortable.
>    >But is there a right to feel comfortable? ... ... But much of
>    >the argument I've heard revolves around "discomfort." I hope
>    >I've dissected that aspect of the debate.

>1. Well, since it much more cost effective to not have seperate facilities,
>   then of course we shall remove the seperate arrangements for men and
>   women in the military.

Hmmm...did I mention cost?  I hadn't intended to...   I didn't ignore cost,
but costs (or lack of costs) can't be allowed to interfere with individual
rights--and besides, it's a separate issue from the one I was discussing.

>   Of course, many if not all women will now feel uncomfortable in showering
>   with the men and bunking with the men, but, hey, where's comfort mentioned
>   in the constitution?

Or how about a more similar parallel--"separate but equal."  Remember that?
Colored-only restrooms?  "Go to the back of the bus, nigger?"  I don't really
think it was a high point in our societal development, do you?  Perhaps the
gay rights lobbies need their own version of Rosa Parks.

And how is "Go to the back of the bus, nigger" much different than "Get the
hell out of the Army, you faggot?"

>2. Anto-gay is a very loaded term. You seem to assume that if people don't
>   agree with a position held by some homosexuals, that they are anti-
>   homosexual.

No, that's *not* what I assume at all.  I even stated "for lack of a better
term" because (a) I didn't think "anti-gay" was entirely accurate and (b)
it's easier to type than "people who oppose policies advocated by the gay
rights lobby."  That's what I meant.  Perhaps I should have stated that more
clearly, as I hadn't intended that phrase to be the focal point of my note.

And what if they ARE truly anti-gay?  They have a right to feel that way;
they just don't have a right to let their feelings manifest themselves into
actions which are truly infringements on the rights of homosexuals.  I
thought that you of all people would understand the implied distinction.

>   Not a valid position at all.

Not as you interpreted it, anyway.


Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Rape After Rape After Rape
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:53:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.001042.21000@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) babbles:
    >>>ZAGREB, Croatia. What is happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina
    >>>to Muslim and Croatian women seems unprecedented in the
    >>>history of war crimes. Women are raped by Serbian soldiers in
    >>>an organized and systematic way, as a planned crime to
    >>>destroy a whole Muslim population, to destroy a society's
    >>>cultural, traditional and religious integrity.
    >>>
    >>>
    >"I take exception to the hyperbole of "unprecented in the
    >history of war crimes"."
    >
    >
    >You would, Phil, you would. ... Go ahead, Phil. Defend it.

To quote Eddie Murphy -- "You are a REAL Dick".

I haven't defended it one bit. In this century alone, what is happening
in Central Europe now is now where a match for the horrors of the Holocaust.

We have, to try and make a direct comparision, the thousands of "field
whores" that were the weekly quota of some of the NAZI concentration camps,
or the incredible figure of over 1,000,000 "comfort girls" that were
"procured" by the Japanese in their area of occupation. Although, the
figure of 1,000,000 is over a period of 1933 through 1945, and is disputed
by the Japanese government, which says it wasn't more than 300,000.

So yes, when you use "unprecedented", you are wrong.

It is in no way a defense -- only an utter asshole could remotely
figure that.

Dick.





-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Date: 2 Jan 93 10:11:39 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <13745@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
    >>And which is why I assert that we have inalienable rights
    >>that are NOT granted by an act of Congress, but are superior
    >>to Congress (which is why I was against ERA -- what Congress
    >>gives, it then has a basis for taking away).
    >>
    >Huh? Perhaps someone can help me out here, but I thought that
    >the ERA was supposed to be a constitutional ammendment, and
    >thus, Congress would be required to abide by it.

Ah, well, no. You do know that in most laws passed in the are of "equal
rights" that Congress clearly exempts itself?

To concede that someone can "grant" you equal rights is to concede that they
have that power in the first place. Congress does not. All that Congress
has done is to take rights from various groups of people, and "give"
entitlements to other groups of people (at the costs of rights of yet
other people).

For example, look at the latest "PC(tm) buzz" about how the Fortune 500
companies have so few women CEO's. So, after Congress "gets" ERA, it looks
around a few years later and says, "Aha, not enough women! That MUST be
unconstitutional". So they run out and pass another fascist law, perhaps
like companies must have 50% of their managers in each level be women.

Or some other shit.

In the long run, the ONLY thing that Congress has to "abide" by is our
inalienable right to take them out and shoot them, as per:

   That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
   deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That
   whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is
   the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
   government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
   powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
   safety and happiness.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics