HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Subject: Re: Privatizations and standard of living
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 21:12:02 GMT

Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes:

>Do you really, honestly believe that the economic successes
>and failures are strongly and directly correlated to privatization
>vs socialization?  Or do you think that maybe social structures,
>corruption, natural resources, culture conditions, and economic
>competition or bullying from neighbors might also play a role.

Both, of course.  Economic success for a nation results from a
combination of factors, including those you listed.  To support
one group of factors (i.e. the cultural) is not to disparage the
importance of the others (i.e. political economic).

>  We're all educated people, here.  Okay, some of us are educated
>people here.  How 'bout we play to the best of us, instead of the
>lowest common denominator.  How 'bout an intelligent discussion of
>issues instead of this absurd political posturing?

I'm all for it.

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:01:33 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Uncl: RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boy

Hi, y'all:
Jamie wrote:

>I agree both that homosexuality is not unnatural, and with T that
>it is RARELY relevant to mention the sexual practices of animals
>when making claims about the sexual practices of humans.
>But I think T goes to far. Humans ARE animals. Our biology is
>continuous with that of the rest of the animal kingdom. We do,
>occasionally, learn things about ourselves from studies of other
>critters, especially primates.
>
>Where's Kerry?

I've just wandered in from our first day of faculty meetings :)  And I'm
glad you said all this, 'cause now I don't have to.  I expect I'll have
more to say after I'm done with the last 50 or so messages waiting for me!

Later,
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:21:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      the only time my desk is neat....

is right before i leave on fridays....

35 min. to beer....

been an interesting day, but i can't wait to get out of here.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:18:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Brett's dubious propositions

>>2. "He" had a certain intent?  Exclusive language?  ???

>You PC police never let up, do you?

>Jamie


A.  On the contrary; I was taken aback by your apparent gaffe! :)

B.  Since Jamie doesn't believe in "PC", how could there be a PC Police
    Department? :)

C.  If there _were_ such a thing, I would think by definition it would
    be unable to "let up".  :)

D.  Saying "black" may be "P.UC." to some; saying "he" when the possibility
    is equal between he and she is simply exclusive language.  We order our
    thoughts with language; we order our actions with thoughts.  It's a
    short road, for most, from exclusive language to exclusive actions.



-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:01:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Addiction as Disease

Why does Robert place a "?" after the title "Dr." in Jack
Kevorkian's name?


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 09:10:10 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: freedom from discrimination
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >  a person's color (or sex, or whatever) should not be the basis of
> >discrimination by the law. aa does discriminate on those things, and
> >so i am against it. what ever happened to the ideal of a color-blind
> >legal system?
>
> I think the same thing that happened to the idea of a color-blind
> society. A color-blind legal system makes no sense in a society
> where there is inequity based upon color.
>
>
> >rtf
>
> -other Andy

   there's gotta be a place to start changing the society, andy. why
not the legal system?

   not to mention the fact that the current system sucks. all it does
is divide people rather than bring them together. all we are doing now
is segregating people, building up anger, creating a spoils system.
look at the hassles clinton has had with the blacks and women and
hispanics and etc. why not just tell people that from now on, merit is
the only acceptable way to choose between interests and leave it at
that? case in point - the military. individuals may be prejudiced, but
the system is purely color-blind. you go exactly as far as your merit
and determination take you. or is there a problem here i'm missing?

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:15:02 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: defense of toleration, ad nauseum

On Mon, 28 Dec 1992 10:31:55 EST Jamie said:
>
>From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
>
>>Jamie,
>
>>I hardly think that people defending free speech is "nauseating."
>
>That's interesting. I do. In some contexts.
>But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps LISTS.POLITICS is a mutual
>backpatting society.
>
>I think James McB takes the prize, by the way. Honorable mention
>for both Rufus and Gary. Colour. Advertize. Thppppp.

I thank you, I think.
>
>Jamie

james
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Bob Packwood - A Bad Boy?
Date: 5 Jan 93 22:39:01 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

I have to agree with Carl*.  Packwood did apologize.  His attitude
was NOT}i"Gee, IF I did something wrong, THEN I apologize," rather
he clearly admitted that he was wrong and was sorry for it.

Now, I don't know if being sorry and admitting you have been wrong
is enough (but it is sure more than many people would do.)

Additionally it seems to me that what Packwood has done is very bad but could
be worse.   Before some of you jump on me let me say that for example he
did not use his office and power to coerce women.

My personal opinion is that the efforts to make him resign is simply
playing power politics.  It has definitely gone past achieving justice.

Ironically, *I* think it would serve the "women's movement" better if
he is forgiven and allowed to finish his term and let the people of
Oregon decide if he should be reappointed.  Letting him stay would
affirm that women are not for revenge but for equality and respect.

There is however one little problem here.  Packwood played loose with
facts so that he could get reelected.  That is a sin alright, but it
is not against women per se, bust against all voters.  The punishment
for THAT sin, I don't know.

--KAT *who has to ho to hospital because he bite his tongue when he said
      he agrees with Carl   :-)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:21:51 GMT

Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes:

>I would suggest that the entire pledge has become somewhat meaningless.
>However, when I choose to say it I do so of my own free will.  I can no
>more be required to recite the pledge than you can be required to pray.

The current Illinois has no penalties for students who violate state
law and refuse to recite the Pledge. In the 1940's, however, Jehovah
Witnesses all over the nation were routinely expelled from school for
refusing to recite the pledge. (And often subject to violence from
their classmates.)

- Carl

p.s. Robert, how do you feel about laws that protect people from
discrimination in housing and employment on the basis of religion?
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Uncl: ActUp/RI joins Colorado Boycott
Date: 4 Jan 1993 17:13 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <19930101.233048.sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet>,      
   Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes...
>By all means, protest if you feel so led.  However, please do not try to
>pass any of this inflammatory rhetoric off as anything more.  Granted, it
>is your *opinion*, obviously constructed from the bitterness of a twisted
>perception of life that is in direct conflict with the majority view.

Gary rights are a minority platform in Rhode Island?  Probably not.  Certainly 
not in Providence.

>Just because you have adopted a *minority opinion* it does not qualify you,
>or anyone else, as A MINORITY in the legal sense.  You may also believe the
>Earth is flat, but should society be required to reward your mistaken
>finding by declaring you a minority worthy of some special protection?
>I think not.

Straw man alert!  Alternately, why are race, religion, ethnicity, and gender
generally accepted bases for minority status?

>Let's cut past the nonsense and admit straight out that Colorado did in fact
>not pass anything resembling hate of homosexuals.  The Amendment proclaims
>that homosexuals will not be recognized as a minority.  BRAVO for Colorado!

Amendment 2 was essentially a watered-down alternative to Oregon's Measure 9. 
The Oregon Citizens' Alliance (a similar group to the Colorado sponsors) made a
similar claim that they were only attempting to affirm non-minority status. 
(Oregon didn't buy it, but the vote was closer than I would have liked).

>If homosexuals are allowed this privilege, then why not drug addicts and
>alcoholics?  Whether you like it or not, your actions are the direct result
>of a choice.  If you choose to be homosexual fine.  If I choose not to be,
>that also is just fine.  Our choices are equal but in opposite directions.

Straw man alert on addiction!  Addiction is generally considered a disease. 
Homosexuality is not.  Further, I can tell you right now many of my friends
will dispute whether sexual orientation is a choice.

>If my choice to be hetero does not qualify me as a minority then why should
>your choice not achieve the same result?

Probably because heterosexuality is the dominant culture and most of our rights
are based on that default assumption.

>The bottom line is that homosexuality does not deserve the legitimization of
>minority status. Colorado has only arrived at the only possible conclusion.

I respectfully and strongly disagree with both these assertions.

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: in::"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:53:02 -0500
From:         "Chris A. Sloffer" <SLOFFER_CHRIS_A@LILLY.COM>
Subject: Re: it's a wonderful life
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.bitnet>

>Someone mentioned Bill offering the middle class a tax cut. I don't
>recall that promise.

"Middle-class taxpayers will have a choice between a children's tax credit
or a significant reduction in their income tax rate."
                   - _Putting People First_

>fred


I guess that since I have no children, I'll opt for the "significant
reduction in [my] income tax rate."   That is, unless I don't qualify for
Clinton's middle class.

Chris
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:28:00 EST
From:         Daniel David Benson <bensonda@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Kevorkian Sets Sights on Ohio
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              at Jan 11, 93 10:33 am

>
> > I think that it might be important to add that Kevorkian assists those with
> > diseases that aren't terminal, only chronic. These individuals are in pain,
>  but
> > is it proper to assist these people in ending their lives? I question whethe
r
> > it is. Terminal illness is one thing but chronic pain? Why not allow the
> > chronically depressed to commit suicide as well - they're in pain as well ar
e
> > they not? It is evident that some sort of regulations are needed to limit
> > people like Kevorkian from killing those who are not terminally ill.
> >
> > - Dan
> >
>
> I feel that _anyone_ who wants to commit suicide ought to be allowed
> to do so.  It's their life.  As for the assisting, from what I understand
> of Dr. Kevorkian, he just supplies the equipment to make it easier.  Other
> people have said that he makes sure family members know and that the
> person involved gets counseled.  This is better than the person driving
> over to the nearest bridge and jumping.
>
> Jonathan
>
 You say that anyone that feels like commiting suicide should? Bravo - a
brilliant stand on this issue! So, a teenager who has just broken up with his
girlfriend and feels like commiting suicide should be allowed (as par for your
argument) to do so. You also state that Kevorkian told these individuals to get
counseling. Great! Sounds like what i was stating to some extent - REGULATION
of this sort of activity. Yet even so, is this adequate? Suppose said teenager
still wants to commit suicide? Should we say "Sure, go ahead, it's your life!"
I think not.

- Dan B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:07:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: ActUp/RI joins Colorado Boycott
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> watching my mom laugh was funnier than any movie. i miss her laugh.

I know how she felt.  "That's a priceless Steinway!"  "Not any more."
Thanks for sharing the memory.

BTW, if you ever get a chance to hear The Goon Show (BBC radio, with
the young Sellers at his craziest), do it.

> >(damn - this right arm keeps swinging up! can't control the darn 7^&*u9!)
>
> hey, i bet that's from the movie....right???

MEIN FEUHRER!  I CAN VALK!

And none of us has even mentioned Slim Pickens' brilliant performance.

Best,
Peter

> linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:10:30 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Sat,
              9 Jan 1993 17:54:44 -0500 from KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA>
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: school daze

From: sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet
*** Resending note of 01/09/93 16:56
From Robert
>    "...It doesn't matter how many homework assignments are completed
>     or how neat the student's work looks."
>                  - Jon Sisson, principal

Hm.  Offhand, I'd say this is pretty screwy.  Is any rationale offered for
this one?

From Robert
The whole process is based on what is called *outcomes*.  The only grade
that counts is the one when they are tested over the unit material.  If
the student fails to achieve a score of at least 80 percent they are
remediated.  This process continues until the student gets it right.
Basically, you're looking at self-paced education.  So far, it hasn't
been decided whether the kids will pass into the next grade if they
cannot attain the 80 percent mark.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:05:23 GMT

Robert,

How do you feel about laws that protect people from discrimination in
housing and employment on the basis of religion?

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Subject: Re: Kevorkian Sets Sights on Ohio
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 21:05:52 GMT

>Making someone stay alive who is obviously in a lot of pain
>is selfish.  Its selfish because you want that person to stay
>alive just because you don't want to feel the loss.

As the resident ethical egoist, I must object to this rather careless
use of the word 'selfish'. 

>i find the idea that someone could be left suffering in the
>sometimes lengthy throes of death repulsive.

I agree.  I find the idea that leaving someone suffering in the
sometimes lengthy throes of death is somehow in my (yours, anyones)
self-interest repulsive.

--Jimbo

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:42:04 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: They're back....

Hi, y'all:
Our beloved president wrote:

>  Well, you know, -T, you may be right.  I'd been
>lead to believe that the answer to the exclusive
>language question was still open, that some authorities
>prefer exclusive language to the plural construction.
>Since you brought it up, though, I'd feel much better
>if you offered someone's expert opinion other than
>your own.  Not that I doubt your credentials for a
>moment.  I'll tell you what; I'll accept the word
>of the Chicago Manual of Style.  (stuff deleted)

I checked the two sources I have handy.  The Council of Biology Editors
Style Manual (4th ed., 1978) states that "The use of _man_ or _men_ as
generic terms for human beings can lead to ambiguity that is unacceptable
in scientific writing."  The authors refer readers to the American
Psychological Association guidelines for additional information.  The
Handbook for Writers (Prentice Hall, 10th ed., 1988) proscribes exlcusive
language:  "More recently, however, we have come to recognize that this
usage [using masculine pronouns for common gender or indefinite antecedents]
discriminates against women and, in fact, is often illogical because it
ignores realities."  Several mechanisms for avoiding exclusive language are
provided and the merits of each discussed.

I know, it ain't the Chicago manual, but it's *something*. :)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:26:29 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: philosopher cards - starter set

Very nice, but you forgot Marx.  Or is he in the more advanced set?

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:51:34 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      toddddddd's observation

Todd says that second hand smoke is dangerous in the home but not in
well ventilated large areas. Obviously, Todd doesn't visit any of the
bars that i go to. I am a lifetime nonsmoker who enjoys blues so I go
to bars to see live entertainment. If you have 150 people chain smoking
cigarettes in a room five times the size of your living room and you
sit in it for four hours, I think your exposure to second hand smoke
would exceed the exposure from living in the same house with a smoker.
I don't do math but 150 people x 5 cigarettes per hour for 4 hours
equals 3000 cigarettes worth of second hand smoke.

Even restaruants that try to segregate smokers from nonsmokers often
have the areas very close together.

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:58:38 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: War in Europe
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>        Why not do us a favor:  get together with your pal Rush and maybe
>_prove_ some wrongdoing on the part of Ms Braun?  Intimations of criminal
>acts really don't cut  it - as "political thought" nor "entertainment."

        Whoever said anything about criminal acts?  Unless you're speaking of
the sexual harassment allegations against her boyfriend.

        Or is it ok when the target is a white male senator but not when it's
the boyfriend of a black female senator?

>        While I'm at it - you can let Rush know that using disparate, unrelated
>persons and events to "prove" some kind of liberal conspiracy and/or denounce
>"liberals" in general won't wash either...I'm sure he'd be upset if I used as
>a personal example of the Reagan "revolution", oh, some crackpot fringe element
>associated with that tragic period, someone vulnerable to personal attacks,
>someone no self-respecting conservative would choose as their spokesperson -
>someone like, say, Ronald Reagan?
>-T.

        Just giving what the conservative got the past 12 years.  Get used to
it :).

Brett'
(BTW-feel free to use Ronald Reagan as a source :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU