HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: madhavan@cadence.com (Rajeev Madhavan)
Subject: Re: test
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:43:08 GMT


testing
-- 
| Rajeev Madhavan              | Manager, AHDL Solutions           |
| e-mail: madhavan@cadence.com | Cadence Design Systems Inc.       |
| Ph.: (408) 428-5671          | 555, River Oaks Pkwy, Bldg 3      |
| Fax: (408) 944-7265          | San Jose,  CA -95051              |
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: An interesting expiremnt that you too can try
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:21:21 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <!wxn+6.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) wrote:
> 
> We [Phil & his girlfriend] took the latest 50 postings from the following
> newsgroups (just picked because, well, they looked appropriate):
> 
>     soc.couples
>     soc.culture.arabic
>     soc.culture.indian
>     soc.feminism
>     soc.men
>     soc.misc
>     soc.religion.christian
>     soc.singles
>     soc.veterans
>     soc.women
> 
> and of course
> 
>     soc.motss
> 
> and printed them out. She took the postings and with a group of her friends
> (all net illiterate) read them. Each person wrote little comments (if
> so inclined) on each posting.
> 
> With the exception of two newsgroups, the comments were from neutral to
> positive (like, a source for indian spices etc.).
> 
> The soc.religion.christian groups was felt to be pompous and arrogant to
> some degree.
> 
> The soc.motss was felt to be "heavily" disgusting. For example, two women
> could NOT believe that "this kind of stuff" was "allowed" to be posted
> (well, it wasn't the time for First Amendment discussions)...
> 
> The moral?
> 
> Well, one can not generalize from the selected group of net posters to
> the entire population. But, I don't think it is THAT out of line.

Typical Phil logic: we can't make this generalization, but let's do it
anyway.  What a great sample for deciding whether soc.motss is disgusting
-- Phil & his girlfriend & some of her friends!  Let's hear it for Science!

> As the recent Newsweek magazine articles on "gays" showed, while most
> people don't think homosexuals should be subject to bias in employment,
> most people also do not want to associate with homosexuals in varying
> degrees. Kind of like Jehovah's Witnesses.

Or right-wing crackpots.

> But, it does show both the futility and the danger of homosexuals trying
> to force acceptance. While the right to be what you are is accepted by
> most people, like Jehovahs Witnesses, a number of people, in this case
> likely a majority, find homosexuality mildly to strobgly repellant.

So, a number of people find gays and JW's (and Cramer and Ronzone)
repellent.  SO WHAT???

> The more homosexuals try to "force" acceptance via coercive laws, the more
> the coercive yahoos (and religious fundies) will use the reactive backlash
> to try to "subdue" homosexuality.
> 
> I.e., he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

In other words:  better not try to stand up for your rights, or THEY will
persecute you.  Not Phil, of course.  He'd never do that.  But Cramer did
recently state that he may soon find it necessary to give his support to
the Religious Right.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 00:27:18 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep14.174327.26630@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
    >>BTW -- just WHAT are these beloved services of yours?
    >>
    >I know of a BIG, EXPENSIVE service the government provides
    >that the rich benefit from, but the poor don't benefit much:
    >All those federally insured deposits in S&L's and banks that
    >went under that we'll be eating up a large % of the federal
    >budget (and your tax dollars) for years to come.
    >
    >There's others, but that's the easiest target. There are
    >plenty of services the rich benefit from. That's why they
    >donate so much to political campaigns.

You are so ignorant. The rich do NOT put money into S&L's. They have always
been a lousy investment. When you have $100K or more to invest, banks and
S&L's are about the last place you invest.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Recall Gov. Pete Wilson
Date: 6 Sep 92 22:08:00 GMT
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Organization: N.I.C.E.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

Rick Eames writes:
>will *never* send my kids to school here.  They are TERRIBLE.  And money is
>NOT the solution.

What are the results you want to see but are not seeing now, & how
do you get them ("the solution") without money?
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Domestic GI Bill
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:25:26 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep14.175541.28224@ntmtv>, jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia
Jazanoski) wrote:

> Clinton is supporting what he calls the Domestic GI Bill to help
> Americans pay for college expenses. Like the military bill,
> students would get $$ for college and would repay it via
> service upon graduation. But the new twist: it would be peaceful
> service, such a teaching or other programs to improve our domestic
> situation. 

You can do that now: it's called ROTC and military service.  Spend some
time in the military and you can have them even contribute to your college
money fund.  Wow.

"Oh, but I don't *want* to do that."  So what?  Do it.

--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:47:28 GMT

In article <0wrnc+h.loren@netcom.com>,
loren@netcom.com (Loren Hart) writes:
>I would also like to point out that the federal estate tax is only
>charged on estates larger than $600,000 dollars.  Again, this is
>something that would benifit the very rich.

Actually there is a very bad bill in Congress now (sorry I don't
have the number as I heard about it while listening to the radio in
my car and haven't had time to investigate yet) that would
drastically reduce this (to something like 200K or less).  Most
people in California would not be able to leave their house to their
kids tax free under this change.  I believe the change is buried in
some other more innocuous piece of legislation.

/June
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5140 talk.politics.misc:44449
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:07:48 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <95621@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >In article <qxsnjgn.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>But as I told you before, Tim, I don't date outside my
    >>species. Debate maybe, but not date. And I don't care how
    >>close you shave your fur nor about your cosmetic tail
    >>amputation, the answer is still no. Now run along and gibber
    >>with Melinda before evolution punsihes you two any further.
    >>
    >I hope you are kidding, Ronzone. Because such an air of
    >superiority is not funny at all.
    >
    >Brian

Yeah, Brian -- I admit it. I'm a specie-ist. Worse, not only do I date
only people in my species (human), I even demand that they have a spine.

In any case, how would YOU respond to someone that can only imagine
the reason you disagree with them is because one is secretly wanting
to have sex with them? Ugh-leeeeee.

What some people will do for a date on Saturday night ....


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.theory
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:54:31 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep9.130523@wsl.dec.com>, gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
> In article <mxsn45m.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
# |# Of course, you forgot to mention what a cabal of homosexual pigs would do
# |# if I opened (or tried to) a trendy bar/eatery in the Castro district.
# |# Somehow, I think the cabal would decide not to patronize me, no matter
# |# how good the food or eats were, just because I'm not one of them. And thus,
# |# I'd be out of business.
# |# 
# Bzzt.  Thanks for playing.  There are several non-gay owned places in the Castro.
# Including the local hardware store, Cliff's Variety.  Now if you were actively
# hostile to gays then you would probably lose all of you business.

Oh?  You think it should be legal for homosexuals to be able to
decide who to do business with, and shun homophobic businesses?
I think we need a law to prohibit that sort of discrimination! :-)
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Who IS Clyaton Cramer?
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:20:26 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <b9tnn==.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <95695@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>Just look at Phil Ronzone, for example---oy, the progress
>>he's made! He's light years ahead of Clayton (at least in my book)

>Uh, sorry Brian, but I don't think I've changed at all (indeed, those
>that disagree with me on this merely think I've changed for the "worse").
>Therefore, I guess it must have been you that changed!!!

Well, in the words of Clayton Cramer (who is NEVER wrong :-)) "I'm not
personally involved with you, so I know your desires"...

The B-ster
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cramer@optilink.uucp (Clayton Cramer): Message-ID: <12133@optilink.UUCP>
I realize it's difficult for a person as depraved as [Brian Kane].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:35:12 GMT

In article <26285@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
>Rick Eames writes:
>>Look, it's very simple.  If I sacrifice my entire life to set aside money
>>for my children, why is it that people like you think it's fine if the
>>government now steals a portion of what I managed to save for my children?
>
>You're using a dishonest argument here, using some propaganda-like
>rhetoric & probably some special pleading.  However, the same can be
>applied to your case: I object to your getting a special dispensation
>from estate taxes, because I see it as _stealing_ from me -- my taxes
>would be reduced accordingly if you paid what I see as your fair share.

HAHAHAHAHA.  Are you really going to argue that income tax rates are going
to be cut if this increase in the inheiritance tax is passed ?  This 
argument might hold a little bit of water if you could show just ONE CASE
of Congress passing a tax cut and paying for it with a corresponding tax
increase.  That isn't how the Congress works.  The income and revenue
parts of the budget are considered entirely seperately.

The plain fact of the matter is that Congress spends about 130% of 
whatever they take in.  There is no way that we can balance the budget
(or even reduce the defecit) by increasing taxes.  The only way that
we can do that is to reduce spending.  I am not going to hold my breath
waiting for Congress to do that.

>how did you manage to "earn" this inheritance?
>The Puritan in me admires your father's hard work, but doesn't see how
>it entitles you to his booty after his death.  

Nobody "earns" an inheritance.  But the person doing the bequeathing has
"earned" the right to dispose of their money any way they see fit.  If
they want to give it to the Federal Gov't, that is their right.  Likewise,
if they wish to give it to their children, or place it in college funds
for their grandchildren, that is their right.

>What's this "my money" stuff?  I thot you were _inheriting_ it?  Or
>are you talking about something else?

If his parents GAVE it to him, then it is indeed his money.

>Frankly, I see you being dishonest in your efforts.  If you don't
>want big government then you should work on getting it cut down.  What
>you're saying above is you don't want to PAY for big government --
>conspicuously absent is "I don't USE big government".  I guess it's ok
>as long as someone else picks up the tab?  No thanks!

Not to come to Rick's defense, but I truly believe that he doesn't want
big government and would gladly see the government (even the parts which
he might use) shrink.  As for me, I would also like the government to 
pare itself down quite a bit.  At any rate, IMHO we can run a perfectly
fine government without raping people who have just lost a loved one.

Guido
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Letter to KQED-FM
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 23:11:40 GMT

In article <92255.50298.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>,
J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>>I have heard a number of reports on the campaigns of Barbara Boxer and
>>Diane Feinstein, especially regarding the fact that two women are running
>>for the two Senate seats.  I have heard nothing about June Genis, a third
>>woman in the race, who is a Libertarian candidate for the Senate.  Ms.
>>Genis is running against Ms. Boxer and Bruce Hershensohn.  I have included
>>a complete list of Libertarian candidates with this letter.
>
>June often writes here.  I don't know many people looking forward to having
>Boxer or Herschensohn.  These are two extremists.  Many Democrats despise
>Boxer and many Republicans despise Herschensohn.  Ms. Genis could (and IMHO,
>should) benefit from the general distaste many have for both candidates.  But
>you'd never guess that judging by the media reporting!  June has my vote.

Thanks, Tim.  Now have you you told that to KQED and your other
media sources :-)  Seriously, I need lots of people to keep writing
letters to the editor saying this kind of thing.

/June
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Vote 'Your Name' for office
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 00:17:07 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba

In article <1992Sep12.231459.13811@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
    >In article <1992Sep11.232859.24728@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
    >miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard) writes:
    >>Instead of not voting, maybe another more forceful statement
    >>would be to write in one's own name for this or that office.
    >>
    >That won't do any good unless you've filled as a registered
    >write-in. Only the votes of candidates know to the Secretary
    >of State prior to the election are actually tabulated.
    >Writing in anyone else has the same impact as not voting.

That's what I thought. Didn't post it because I wasn't sure. And, wasn't this
a somewhat recent change too (throwing away the write-ins)?

So, even if I convinced 51% of the voters to write me so I could start
dismantling the State (at least in CA), it would be ineffective.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:39:55 GMT

In article <b7ynalm.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.174327.26630@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>    >>BTW -- just WHAT are these beloved services of yours?
>    >>
>    >I know of a BIG, EXPENSIVE service the government provides
>    >that the rich benefit from, but the poor don't benefit much:
>    >All those federally insured deposits in S&L's and banks that
>    >went under that we'll be eating up a large % of the federal
>    >budget (and your tax dollars) for years to come.
>    >
>    >There's others, but that's the easiest target. There are
>    >plenty of services the rich benefit from. That's why they
>    >donate so much to political campaigns.
>
>You are so ignorant.
 an you are so rude. But that's beside the point.
>
>The rich do NOT put money into S&L's. They have always
>been a lousy investment. When you have $100K or more to invest, banks and
>S&L's are about the last place you invest.
>
	I'll have to tell that to my well-off relatives, who always stressed
never letting your banks accounts go over 100K - open up account in other banks.
If I remember correctly, Perot has $1M in checking- and 100K per account is 
insured. 

	Besides, if the rich don't put much money into banks , the poor, who 
have little or no savings, benefit less from this service. Since the original 
point seemed to imply that all these big expensive government services benefit 
the poor and not the rich, I came up with one exception.  

	Once again, there are plenty of government services the rich benefit
from the FSLIC is just an easy example.
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:29:24 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <65786@cup.portal.com>, ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) wrote:
> 
> > Income, to me, is money you *earn*.  If my dad leaves me the money he saved
> > up his entire life, I find it OBSCENE that the US Government sees fit to
> > take a chunk of it.  My dad EARNED it, PAID taxes on it and has now given
> > it to me.  Why tax it again?
> > 
> > --
> > Rick Eames
> > athos@apple.com
> 
> Well, for that matter, why should they tax your income?  Apple PAID taxes
> when they EARNED it, and then they give it to you.  Why tax it again?

No business pays taxes on money they pay to employees, that's why.

--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Vote 'Your Name' for office
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 23:14:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.232859.24728@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard) writes:
>Instead of not voting, maybe another more forceful statement would be
>to write in one's own name for this or that office.

That won't do any good unless you've filled as a registered
write-in.  Only the votes of candidates know to the Secretary of
State prior to the election are actually tabulated.  Writing in
anyone else has the same impact as not voting.

/June
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5144 ca.politics:7564
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:18:33 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep9.130523@wsl.dec.com> gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
    >Bzzt. Thanks for playing. There are several non-gay owned
    >places in the Castro. Including the local hardware store,
    >Cliff's Variety. Now if you were actively hostile to gays
    >then you would probably lose all of you business.

Out of the hundreds of places in the Castro, there are several that
aren't owned by homosexuals. Wonderful.

Several. Out of hundreds. Wow. Tolerance and all that man.

Even more, someone KNOWS the sexual orientation of the owner of a hardware
store. Shit, I don't even know the name of the owner of ANY of the stores
I go to, much less their sexual orientation.

But then again, such knowledge is important to SOME kinds of people.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski)
Subject: Domestic GI Bill
Originator: jazanopa@nmtvs264
Reply-To: jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:55:41 GMT


Clinton is supporting what he calls the Domestic GI Bill to help
Americans pay for college expenses. Like the military bill,
students would get $$ for college and would repay it via
service upon graduation. But the new twist: it would be peaceful
service, such a teaching or other programs to improve our domestic
situation. 

The US could learn a lot from looking at how other countries handle
these problems.  Many other countries, like France, have service 
requirements, but allow people to fulfill them through non-military 
service. France also has reasonable college expenses.

Reagan killed most accessable financial aid to undergraduates; 
in the early-mid 80s Guaranteed Student loans were only guaranteed
for households earning less that $30K and few assets.

Patti Jazanoski

By the way, the whole GI Bill is pretty interesting:
  College expenses go sky-high.
  Cut financial aid of students.
  Offer GI Bill aid to students.
  Get a willing volunteer army of lower-middle class students.

Xref: sparky ba.politics:5139 talk.politics.theory:4100