HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roy_wells@qm.vitalink.com
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Prop. 13 and California's fiscal crisis
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:59:29 GMT
Reply-To: <roy_wells@qm.vitalink.com> (Roy H. Wells)
Organization: Vitalink Communications Corporation


 megana@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Megan Adams) writes:

>Another effect of prop 13 is to drive young wage earners out of state. Why?
>Because why buy a house here when you will pay ten times the property tax
>of the rich old geezer down the street who bought his house back in the 
>early 70's. 

>Grossly unfair. 

I see, and it *was* fair when people who had purchased their homes in the 
1960s were, by the time of Prop. 13, often making tax payments as large as 
their house payment?  I *was* fair that retired folks were losing their homes 
simply due to the inflation of their taxes?

Unfortunately, when it comes to taxes, there is NO SUCH THING as fairness.

Progressive taxes unfairly tax upper income earners at a much higher rate 
than middle or low income earners.  Flat tax rates unfairly tax lower income 
earners in terms of taking a larger proportion of the income needed for basic 
needs.

National taxes tax the income of a Californian at $50K at the same rate as 
a resident of West Virginia at $50K, but anyone who has been there can tell 
you that $50K will go a lot farther in West VA.

I repeat, when it comes to taxes, there is NO SUCH THING as fairness.


----
"If you can't reach (age) 70 by a comfortable road, don't go."  --Mark Twain
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 4 Sep 92 09:40:06 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <1992Sep4.135436.8364@tc.cornell.edu>, shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
> In article <12129@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> Do I make myself clear?
> 
> As a general rule I'd have to say that no, you don't.

Oh, come now, Melinda, of course he does.  His arguments may not be clear,
but his agenda most definitely is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton, You've missed an opportunity...
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:04:16 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <11927@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> By the way, Wuornos was molested as a child.  She grows up to be
> a lesbian and a murderer.  Is anyone surprised?

Yes, as a matter of fact.  By some estimates, as many as one woman in four
is molested as a child.  By this logic, they should all be lesbians and
murderers.

More Clayton Cramer Crap (tm).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7079 ca.environment:829
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ca.environment
Subject: Re: "Ecofascists" In Action
Keywords: Pollution, Volunteerism, Environment
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:59:48 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <1992Aug26.180137.1353@BofA.com>, dan@BofA.com (Dan Brockman) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug25.130826@wsl.dec.com> gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
|> >|> Again, why a single group?  Why not parcel it out the way pieces of real
|> >|> estate has historically been parceled out to ranchers in the past?
|> >|> 
|> >Which has done what to the land that the cattle graze on?  Do you understand
|> >the traditional fight between cattle ranchers, and other ranchers?
|> 
|> Those who feel the land should be used for, say, a wildlife preserve, 
|> rather than a cattle ranch, can buy the land from the rancher and 
|> make of it a wildlife preserve.  And if they are not willing to pay
|> the price to acquire the land for wildlife, then who do they expect
|> to pay the price?  You in the market for any ranches, George?
|> 

So, again, the person with the most money wins right?  And what happens
to the irreplacable land?  How about all of the species destroyed by
over ranching/farming?

In the market for oxygen yet Dan?
-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:10:47 GMT
Organization: QueerNet

In article <194306@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov> pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
>I do not condone harassing phone calls and will also call for them to stop,

I wonder if Clayton is not, in fact, getting such calls, but rather, trying
ineptly to illustrate a point.  I wonder if he plans to collect whatever
statements he gets condemning the harrassing calls and then say, "If you could
come out against this, why not against NAMBLA?"

Just an idle speculation...
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: ROSEBUD"S LAST WORDS (was Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home)
Followup-To: alt.slack
Date: 4 Sep 1992 07:42:59 GMT
Organization: Top of Hearst Street Gang
Distribution: ca
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

In article <12094@optilink.UUCP> manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
>I HURD THAT ROSEBUD"S LAST WURDS WER "DIE COMMIE RAT BASTARDT!!!"
>ANYWON ELSE HEER THAT?

Well I heard "Xanadu & Charles Foster Kane"
but maybe the transmission was garbled
From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Economy of USA
Keywords: total blinkered idiocy
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:03:07 GMT
            <19738@fritz.filenet.com>
            <1992Aug26.185139.5415@island.COM>
            <4adn1-n.tcox@netcom.com>
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <4adn1-n.tcox@netcom.com>
 by tcox@netcom.com (Thomas Cox):

: Warning:  This post contains _Actual_ _Data_ [tm].  Be careful!  Gird
: your prejudices tightly!  You don't want to go and get your
: preconceptions rattled, do you?  [Hint: employment is looking up.] 

This was a promising start.

: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
:> asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk) writes:
:
:>> However, there's one point on your side: the 8% only represents the
:>> numbers of people who _apply_for_unemployment_.  Two things gets people
:>> off the application process; one, they find a job, two, they give up.
:
: If someone is not looking for a job, then they should not be counted.
: That is because they are not having the same effect on the economy
: that "real" unemployed people have -- reducing the pressure for wage
: inflation. 

This will require clarification.

First, why not counted?  "Looking for a job" has nothing to do with
"wage inflation," as it depends on which categories are looking.  12
million bricklayers looking for work will no impact on the wage of an
Ada programmer, and vice versa.

Second, whether or not you count them depends on what you're measuring.
Since we're measuring "the economy," one would think that being unemployed,
whether or not actively looking, has some impact on spending habits.

: [other random proof-by-assertion garbage deleted]

It goes downhill from here.  First, no one was trying to "prove"
anything, so this accusation is totally 100% bogus and full of malice.
If you want proofs, go back to Euclidian Geometry.  This is politics.
Proofs, if they even exist, come after the assertions are disbelieved.

Just state that you disbelieve the assertion, and ask for proof.  
Calling the assertions garbage out of hand neither wins friends nor 
influences people.

[malice removed]

: On to the Actual Data.
:
: It looks like the unemployment rate is rising at the same time as the
: number of jobs is rising.  Yes, they're BOTH going up as of the last
: few months, and total jobs have returned to 1990 levels.  Note that
: losses in blue collar jobs (as manufacturing productivity increases)
: have been matched by gains in white collar jobs.

Well, that's some good news then.  But is this a definate dependable
trend, or just a blip on an overall downslide?

: Source:  _The Wall Street Journal_, front page, Tuesday 25-Aug-92.

This is not necessary, Tom.  I trust you.  I'm certain you wouldn't lie
to 14,000 people just to win an argument on the Net.

My question is this: so what's your point?

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
YOUR selfishness is greedy and self-serving, MY selfishness is needy and 
altruistic.
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton Evading Again?
Date: 4 Sep 92 09:35:48 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <12133@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <95223@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>> After failing to admit his incorrect interpretation of the "overrepresented"
>> nature of homosexuals who are child molesters, Cramer again fails to comment
> 
> Because my interpretation was correct.

No, Clayton, it wasn't.  The flaws in your logic have already been pointed
out to you in great detail.

> I did respond, fully, and completely.  Stop lying, if you know how.
> I realize it's difficult for a person as depraved as you.

And once again, no, Clayton, you didn't.  I've read every posting of this
debate and you have failed to respond to all of Mr. Kane's points.  You're
really making an idiot of yourself on this one.

For that matter, you haven't responded to all of my points regarding your
assertions about homosexuality and child molestation and homosexuality and
mental health.  Want to take those up again?  Or are you going to let me
claim victory in this debate?

Interesting how you toss the phrase "liar" around so much (you've now called
me, Mr. Kane, and the entire homosexual community "liars").  As for Mr. Kane's
so-called "depravity", that was really an idiotic insult.  I've read all of
his postings and have seen no evidence of depravity.  Instead, he has res-
ponded to you in a clear, well-reasoned manner, heroically managing to avoid
insults and ad hominem attacks.  If your sole evidence of his "depravity" is
his claim that he is bisexual, then this is line with so many of your other
attacks--having no basis in fact and no supporting evidence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7404 talk.politics.misc:43474
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 20:17:24 PDT
Distribution: world               
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
> Look.  When a guy walks out of a bar wearing leather pants, leather
> jacket, leather cap, and there are metal studs on EVERYTHING, and
> he's not the only patron involved, what assumption do you make?

That the place is probably a leather bar.

> I'm reminded of when the S.F. Police Dept. went recruiting in
> "Chaps" a few years back.  According to press reports at the time,
> the recruiting officer explained the virtues of recruiting cops
> in a place like that, "At least we don't have to teach the use
> of handcuffs and restraint devices."  Does it scare you to think
> that police officers are being recruited in a place where the
> clientele has pain, humilation, and sexual pleasure conflated?


You mean Yorba Linda????



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us
[] Long Beach, California
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7418 talk.politics.misc:43556
From: joan@koala.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton, You've missed an opportunity...
Date: 29 Aug 1992 20:15:33 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: koala.berkeley.edu

In article <12004@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
]>In article <17kc9jINN2th@agate.berkeley.edu>, joan@koala.berkeley.edu writes:
]>> In article <11927@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
]>> ]>I was aware of it.  I didn't raise it because it's a remarkably
]>> ]>rare sort of crime, and unlikely to be typical of anything.
]>> ]>
]>> ]>By the way, Wuornos was molested as a child.  She grows up to be
]>> ]>a lesbian and a murderer.  Is anyone surprised?
]>> 
]>> 	As you mentioned, it is rare and not typical of anything.
]>> Yes, I am a bit surprised.
]>> 
]>> Joan V
]>
]>A woman who was molested as a child (almost certainly by a man)
]>grows up to become a prostitute (a job that involves low self-esteem
]>and sex with complete strangers that she has no attraction to),
]>a lesbian (so no man involved with her sexually), and then 
]>murders men (thus dealing with a lot of anger from being
]>molested), and you are surprised?
]>
]>Why?  It seems pretty darn logical to me.  Incredibly sad, but
]>perfectly logical.

	Although it seems logical, I've never heard of it happening before.
The very few female serial killers I have heard of did not operate this
way, as, for instance, the "Sacramento landlady."  Although one never
knows, there was no information at the time that she had either been
molested or been a lesbian, plus her means of murder was more traditional.

	Perhaps for you the surprise is that there are so few formerly-
molested lesbian serial man-killers?

Joan V
From: rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:12:42 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <1992Sep1.190134.3372@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> leem@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Lee Mellinger) writes:
>In article <394@vega.iii.com> rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins) writes:
>
>Side handle batons come in two forms, high tensil strength aluminum
>and high strength plastic.  I never seen nor heard of Kevlar batons
>and I hold a POST certificate for side handle batons.
>
Just because you have never seen or heard of a Kevlar baton does not mean they
do not exist. :-)

Maybe Kevlar is a type of plastic, I don't know for sure.  In that event your
high strength plastic batons may well be Kevlar.  I for one have seen one.
They do *look* like plastic.  Maybe they have not reached civilian services
yet.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Russell Hockins             |  This civilization is recyclable             |
| Innovative Interfaces, Inc. |                ( well most of it anyway )    |
|                           packet : ka6foy @ ki6yk.#nocal.ca.na.usa         |
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: urban@sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Urban)
Subject: Re: Pushkin Dueling Libertarians
Reply-To: urban@sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Urban)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:27:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.154541.27401@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>
>Well, I can't say it's a subject I've invested a lot of time
>thinking about, but on the surface since all parties agree to
>participate in a duel of their own free will I see no reason that
>libertarians would forbid such activity as long as it was
>conducted in a way which prevented innocent third parties from
>being endangered by the combatants.
>

Like their families or other dependents?
	
	Mike Urban

	urban@cobra.jpl.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ca.environment
Subject: Re: "Ecofascists" In Action
Keywords: Pollution, Volunteerism, Environment
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:09:32 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <19739@fritz.filenet.com> asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk) writes:
>Written in article <8203.21956@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>
> by bruce@godzilla.swdc.stratus.com (Bruce Overby):
>
>The joke among sailors is that it's illegal to use the head while in the
>Marina (that's true).  You must be so many feet out to sea first.  Or, 
>you can give it to Hyperion so they can dump it in the sea for you.
>
It is also a joke to think the Coast Guard is catching polluters.  The Coast
Guard ship I was on *purposely* went out beyond the 50 mile [ pumping
bilges ] limit so we could pump oily bilge water at the request of the
engineering officer, ordered by the captain.  I know because I was the QM
on watch at the time and made the appropriate log entry for the course
change.  I wonder if there are any legal grounds to prosecute them on this.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Russell Hockins             |  This civilization is recyclable             |
| Innovative Interfaces, Inc. |                ( well most of it anyway )    |
|                           packet : ka6foy @ ki6yk.#nocal.ca.na.usa         |
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Clayton, You've missed an opportunity...
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 14:01:05 GMT

In article <12004@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>A woman who was molested as a child (almost certainly by a man)
>grows up to become [ ... ]
>a lesbian (so no man involved with her sexually)

Hey, Claytoon - while it may seem to *you* that the
world revolves around men (in your case, homosexual
men), it in fact doesn't.  Lesbians tend to become
lesbians because we fall in love with women, not
because of anything to do with men.

[Although recent sociological research has found that, at
least on the West Coast, Claytoon is a leading cause of
lesbianism.]
-- 
"I would promptly inform any homosexual who would dare to proposition
me that my preference is fisting."  -- Theodore A. Kaldis

       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton, You've missed an opportunity...
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:59:42 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <11927@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>By the way, Wuornos was molested as a child.  She grows up to be
>a lesbian and a murderer.  Is anyone surprised?

I am. She's the only lesbian I know of who has murdered.

Except maybe Lizzie Borden...and no one will know for sure about that...
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: evanh@sco.COM (Evan Hunt)
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriages
Organization: Stan's Chosen Ones
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 00:11:16 GMT


Don't blame me, I voted for foy@aero.org (Richard Foy).
>How did the state ever get involved in marriages? What possible 
>justification is there for the government laws on the subject?

Protection of women, I'd imagine.  Women are the usual victims of
bigamists (I speak here of marriage under false pretenses, not of
a family with two wives and one husband) and in poligamous marriages
the wives are often treated like slaves.  And, of course, puritanism
and bigotry was a big part of it as well.

In any case, if it was ever needed, it isn't anymore, and it was
always unconstitutional in my opinion.

-- 
"I had generously shown on the stage my interior life as a raging beast, but
 my exterior life as a mediocre human being and dilettante of of normal int-
 elligence remained unchronicled...I *knew* that beneath my work's primeval,
 hysterical facade there was a calm little writer in an armchair just waiting
 to burst forth." -- Wally Shawn, on the writing of "My Dinner With Andre'"
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 1 Sep 92 11:09:35 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

[Clayton said]
> # # I discount the idea of homosexuality being more than just sex
> # # because I read soc.motss, and it's clear that at least with gay
> # # men, there's nothing more than animal sex involved.  (Excuse
> # # me, I'm insulting animals -- I've never seen an animal need 
> # # leather, whips, or instruments of bondage to enjoy sex.  Animals
> # # are also MUCH less promiscuous than soc.motss members).

[I said]
> # This from a man who swears that he never stoops to ad hominem attacks....

[Clayton said]
> How is this an ad hominem attack?

According to Clayton, all homosexuals are:
1.  promiscuous.
2.  into (lower than) animal-type sex.
3.  incapable of loving relationships.

Now, my Latin is a little weak so I may have misinterpreted the phrase "ad
hominem".  If it is possible to engage in ad hominem attacks against an
entire community, I submit that this is precisely what Clayton has done.
In any case, since Brian Kane is homosexual, Clayton has, in effect, attacked
him as well.

[Clayton said]
> How is this an ad hominem attack?  By pointing out that the claims
> of love, romance, etc. are effectively destroyed by the fetishism
> and casualness of homosexual sex?  Now, if I had claimed that 
> Mr. Kane engaged in these behaviors, as a way of attacking his
> argument, it would be ad hominem.

I quote:  "it's clear that at least with gay men, there's nothing more than
animal sex involved"; and "promiscuity is a fundamental part of being
homosexual".  Since neither of these is true, I'd say this qualifies as
an attack.  Since you object to the "ad hominem" part, I'll just leave that
out.

[I said]
> # Clayton is scared to death of homosexuality and will stoop to anything
> # to attack it, including the lies posted above which really aren't worth
> # responding to.

[Clayton said]
> Shall I reproduce some of the postings from soc.motss about sex
> in public restrooms (glorying in it, no less)?

While you're at it, Clayton, why don't you (for once in this debate) present
some evidence.  I've lost track of the number of lies, myths, and stereo-
types you've presented about homosexuals and homosexuality.  You have *never*
presented sufficient evidence to support even *one* of these claims.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ca.politics