HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:49:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.021156.19355@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.170104.6283@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Fre writes...
>>In article <1992Sep14.131935.5875@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>In <21510@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>>Yes, but when you look at the whole picture, you will find that one of
>>>the better things to do with your money is to invest in long-term
>>>investments,
>> 
>>Haugh didn't write "long-term", he wrote "tax-sheltered".  Haugh
>>currently makes long-term investments because they pay off.  He'll
>>change to tax-sheltered for the same reason.
>> 
>Just some info to chew on. An important part of Clinton's economic
>plan was to make tax credits for "long-term" investment.

So?  Bush advocates a "I don't care where you invest it" long-term tax
preference, called the "capital gains tax", and Clinton disagrees.
Therefore, Clinton is pushing tax preferences for SELECTED long-term
investment, lying and/or agrees with Bush.  Let's assume the first.

We've tried that; it was the pre-81 tax policy.  Political tax
preferences are POLITICALLY rational, but Clinton has to argue that
his long-term preferences will be ECONOMICALLY rational.  Considering
the record, that's a hard argument to make.  Let's see it.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: dboyes@is.rice.edu (David E Boyes)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Bible, Homosexuality, Translations, etc.
Date: 12 Sep 1992 06:00:49 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <BuBKuB.4qx@rice.edu> cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston) writes:

>  Do you think that a person can believe in the existence and
>teachings of Jesus, believe that following him is the one true way to
>salvation, and yet not believe that Paul, or some other prophet, was
>divinely inspired?  Who said Paul was divinely inspired?  Anyone I
>can trust to know better than myself?  Anyone (besides Paul) who was
>there at the time?

In one phrase: human men, not God.

The canon of books included in the Bible was officially
determined by the Council of Carthage around 350 AD. 
The canon changed several times from approximately 28 AD to 400
AD, with Jerome's Latin translation completed in 405 forming the
most widely accepted version until well after the Council of
Trent in 1546.

The Muratorian Canon in use in Rome circa 200 AD included the
Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy,
Titus, Philemon, James, 1 and 2 John, Jude, Revelation of John,
Revelation of Peter, Wisdom or Solomon, and The Shepherd of
Hermas (not to be used in public worship).

Origen's manuscripts in 250 AD included the
Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy,
Titus, Philemon, 1 John, Revelation of John. Hebrews, James, 2
Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, The Shepherd of Hermas, Letter of
Barnabas, Teaching of Twelve, Apostles, and Gospel of the Hebrews
were under disputed authority and rejected by a majority of
commentators with surviving manuscript evidence.

By 300 AD and Eusebius, the content had changed to  the
Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy,
Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, and 1 John, with a copy of the
Revelation of John with disputed authorship and several
significant manuscript errors from Origen's copy.

James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude were disputed, and The
Shepher of Hermas, Letter of Barnabas, Teaching of Twelve,
Apostles, Gospel of the Hebrews, Revelation of Peter, Acts of
Peter, and the Didache were rejected by a majority of
commentators with surviving manuscript evidence.

The final grouping of books adopted by the Council of Carthage is
the same one used today.

>Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + cathyf@rice.edu

(gee, that History of Christianity and the Roman World course
comes in handy, finally!)
-- 
David Boyes
dboyes@rice.edu
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5151 alt.politics.clinton:5099
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:54:12 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <PETONIC.92Sep11134753@daisy.hal.com> petonic@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic) writes:
>Am I not correct in assuming that "insider trading" rules include those
>laws which might punish a CEO for buying up major shares a week before
>a fantastic product announcement is made and dumping major shares
>a week before layoffs are announced?

If I remember correctly, the insider trading rules only require that a
so-called "insider" announce that they are going to buy or sell stock.
There are investors who regularly use these announcements as part of the
decision-making process.  I'm one of them ;-)
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4930 alt.politics.clinton:4472
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 07:38:21 GMT
 <PZaDr*jX0@caleb.UUCP> <1992Sep6.214512.6940@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Sep6.214512.6940@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, Peter D. Lauren writes:

> In article <PZaDr*jX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep2.205150.3382@pony.Ingres.COM>, QUOTE OF THE YEAR writes:
> >
> >> Pardon my ignorance, but how does the growth of the 80's cause the 
> >> current recession unless you are saying that we morgaged our future
> >> in the 80's. In that case I agree with you.
> >
> >There are economic cycles.  The economy goes up, then the economy goes down.
> >This has been going on for hundreds of years.  It is hardly a case of "paying
> >for the 80's."
> >
> 
> Yes, but there hasn't been a downswing like this since the great depression.
> 
> >> Like FDR did when he successfully reduced unemployment.
> >
> >Yeah, he did it by getting us into WWII.
> 
> The worst of the depression was over by the late 30's.  By that stage,
> unemployment was already going down.

Partly because FDR was selling arms to rearm Europe for WWII.  We didn't get out
of the depression until after WWII was in full swing.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Li
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:48:07 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep14.123031.4324@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <3508.91.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us> david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)  writes:
>>   I may be wrong here, I'm certainly no lawyer, but I was under the
>>   impression that lawbreaking wasn't considered "criminal" until it
>>   constitutes a felony. I believe that misdemeanors are considered
>>   "infractions" not "crimes". 
>
>Hmmm, I never really considered the difference.  I just assumed that
>anything they arrested you and put you in jail for was a 'crime'.

If it's part of the criminal code, it's a crime.  Speeding tickets
are part of the criminal code, therefore, speeding tickets are crimes.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Privacy    (was Re: what the hell is HR 4983
Date: 14 Sep 92 06:11:13 GMT
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Sep8.143402.17759@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
- >	You would rather impose your views on folk in Oklahoma? 
- 
- IMHO, one of the biggest responsibilities of the Federal govt. is to
- protect my rights - if this means that the good folk of OK can't have
- their way about killing me, fine.  What you are describing is mob rule
                                [ ... ]   
- At this point we could start _another_ ongoing debate over pro-life
- vs. pro-choice but I will not get sucked into it.  Suffice it to say
- that it I believed that it was the right of the unborn to gestate in
- it's mother for 9 months, I would support it, but I don't.
 
	Just as those hypothetical Oklahomans do not believe in the 
   right-to-life for born folk.  Now, that doesn't mean that they 
   necessarily want to kill you, any more than the abortion-rights 
   folk desire that every child be aborted.  The issue at hand is 
   whether local communities should be able to self-govern or whether 
   we need a "Big Brother" (Los Federales or The New World Order) to 
   tell us how to act, speak, think, etc.  

	If the (residents of the) individual States should be able to 
   determine the legality of abortion without Federal intervention, 
   then these same folk should be permitted to determine the local  
   drinking age (or even be "dry"), the local highway speed limits, 
   whether murder/theft/nose-picking is a crime, etc.  If the Feds 
   want to make a law concerning X, they should have to amend the US 
   Constitution, unless such legislative power is explicitly "delegated 
   ti the United States by the Constitution" already.  


- Good point about amending the Const. to outlaw alcohol but not
- (illicit) drugs.  However, if it was the State of Texas conducting the
- WoD, within the borders of Texas, would you oppose it and if so, why?

	I wouldn't like it, but I don't have a copy of the State 
   Constitution handy, so I don't know offhand whether it would 
   violate the Texas Constitution.  On the other hand, the SC has 
   "incorporated" the Bill of Rights such that the restrictions 
   also apply to the States.  Funny, though, how "Congress shall 
   make no laws" transforms to include State Leges, but "shall not 
   be infringed" is ignored when either Federal, State or local 
   authorities want to deny some folk a basic civil right.  Sigh. 


- >  kossack@qvi.com   |   Guinness and Harp and Bass ... oh my!  
- 
- And Celis White...

	Uhhh, that would throw the meter off too much, even for a  
   filk fan such as myself.  Too, White Ale's got a bit of a weird 
   taste, but as an occasional change of pace, it's not bad ... even    
   if it is from Austin.   :-)


-- 
Jordan M Kossack  | You're so vain, you probably think this .sig is about you.  
 kossack@qvi.com  | You're so vain, I bet you think this .sig is about you. 
 +1 713 240 2073  | Don't you?  Don't you?  Don't you?
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Church and state again
Date: 10 Sep 1992 17:52:21 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep10.161624.41204@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>It may be pointless to argue with Robert Heinlein on tx.politics, but
>communism is not a religion.

It isn't? Why not? After all, it is essentially the worship of the State and
the People...it's close enough to a religion for me.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:53:48 GMT

In <21469@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Sep6.053728.5495@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>My impression is that there are very few doctors who will perform
>>3rd trimester abortions in the country (you probably can count
>>them on one of your hands), and will only do so for medical emergencies.
>>I believe there was an article in the NYT earlier this year on one
>>of them.

>Most major cities in states where 3rd trimester abortions are legal
>have a doctor or two that will perform them.  That is what the OR
>protests in Wichita (or was it Kansas City?) were about last summer.

It was Wichita, and you are correct.  However, you gloss over the
question of the actual number of doctors who will perform such
abortions.  Does anyone know just which states allow 3rd trimester
abortions for anything other than health risk to the mother or
severely damaged foetuses?  Does anyone know just how many clinics and
doctors there are who will perform 3rd trimester abortions?

>THAT clinic was the one where 3rd trimester abortions were being
>performed and that is why it was picked.

I was under the same impression as Ms. Levy.  The Wichita clinic is
one of the few IN THE COUNTRY which will perform 3rd trimester
abortions.  Even then, the acceptable grounds for such abortions were
pretty specific and restrictive.  Note that this apparent scarcity of
clinics and doctors who will perform 3rd trimested abortions does not
bode well for the provability of John's (so far) unsubstantiated
claims that abortions are resulting every day in live babies which are
subsequently smothered in rags.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton
Date: 14 Sep 92 03:14:57 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep12.182241.25101@oakhill.sps.mot.com> jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry) writes:
>70 billion,  This means that if Clinton can get the congress to go along
>and roll the tax rates on the wealthy back to 1977 rates he will have a 
>surplus of 14 billion.  Now if he can get congress to go along may be 
>another story.  

This assumes that raising the tax rates (which is different from rolling
them back - ask the Proposition 13 people which direction their tax
rollback went ...) is going to actually result in increased tax revenues.
The evidence is that it won't.

With higher tax rates, people may stop making certain risky investments
because the return less taxes isn't enough to make the investment pay off.
A good example is oil exploration - with the odds of a well coming in
being pretty awful, the last thing you need is a 50 to 70 percent
incremental tax bracket on top of that 80 to 90 percent rate of failure.

The luxury tax was a dismal failure and put thousands of people out of
work.  That experience alone should be sufficient evidence that tax hikes
don't generate increased revenue.  The luxury tax actually cost the
federal government billions.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
From: gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Sex Education <fairly long, but good!>
Keywords: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:13:45 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Tennessee Ernie Port Authority

In article <mumble> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
|I'd like an option.  I'd like to be able to say "My kids will learn that
|material at home", sign some paper and voila, they are not in public
|sex ed class, but something else.  Parents who feel otherwise can do what
|they like.  Kinda like pro-choice isn't it?

Fortunately, as others have noted, parental consent is a nearly
universal feature of modern sex ed programs.  (I apologize on behalf
of your school district for making yours compulsory.)  And yes, it's
very much like pro-choice, and no, I for one do not appreciate your
veiled and baseless implication that choice activists are in favor of
compulsory public-school sex ed.

|>2) Sex education should be modified to encourage abstinence
|>specifically, presumably labelling other activities as 'bad',
|>'unacceptable', 'immoral', or simply incorrect.
|
|Mistake.  Don't do it.

... directly, anyway.  See below.

|  About as far as I'd go here is giving them
|some really thorough info and interviews with kids who have had pregnancies, 
|diseases, abortions.  Real life examples.  No judgements will be necessary, 
|I think.

Here you are talking about encouraging abstinence _indirectly_ by
presenting only one angle.  It's like saying, vote or not, as you
choose, but rememeber that the last time people voted, it resulted in
a Bush presidency.  (-:<

-- 
Ben Gamble                              B0 f- t+ w- g+ k- s- m- e r-v p
gamble@owlnet.rice.edu 
       Oh ye who go about saying unto each other:  "Hello sailor":
       Dost thou know the magnitude of thy sin before the gods?
From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Sex Education (was lots of other subjects)
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:41:43 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Gordon Burditt

>>It is a straight fact, is it not, that the best way to avoid pregnancy and 
>>STD's is abstinance?
>
>Not quite. The word "best" makes that statement a value judgement.

I don't think so, if you define "best" as "most effective", meaning
"lowest probability of pregnancy and STDs".

>Abstinence is indeed 100% effective against pregnancy and disease,

I don't think so.  Abstinence has failure modes, just like condoms,
although abstinence has a MUCH better record.  Rape transmitting STDs or 
causing pregnancy is one failure mode.  (And don't tell me he should
have been carrying a grenade, and pulled the pin to take the rapist
with him when he knew he was going to be raped.)  And for AIDS, there are
non-sexual ways of getting it.  There's not too much you can do
about stopping doctors from giving you a blood transfusion (now
quite safe, but NOT 100%) if you're unconscious and in their
opinion, need one.  Drugs you can usually abstain from but not
if someone administers them forcibly.

You may debate whether allowing a date to get you so drunk that
you decide to have sex is a failure of abstinence.

>but whether that makes it best is up to the individual to decide.

					Gordon L. Burditt
					sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Summary: George *knows* misrepresentation.
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:04:27 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University

In article <exuptr.503.716165967@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>In article <BuDH9t.9w1@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>Yeah -- and managed to exclude them almost as well as his pals Robertson and
>>that Quayle guy did.  You must not have been paying attention to them, 
>>either...
>
>Sorry, I listened very closely.  He was very clear about the fact that they 
>were not to be excluded.  For what reason are you misrepresenting what was 
>said?

He was clear?  Okay, exactly what *did* he say?  (Even if he *did* make some
effort to include them, it doesn't make much difference -- he says one
thing, the rest of his loony-tune pals in the RNC say another.  That makes
for a really attractive image -- a party that can't figure out who's running
the show, being led by someone who'd do *anything* to be re-elected, as he
himself has stated before...)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

                        The SubGenius MUST have Slack!
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Summary: Someone buy Pritchett a clue...
Date: 6 Sep 92 19:59:05 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Theoretical.

In article <kKaDr*gX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <BtyMLn.HtH@rice.edu>, David E Boyes writes:
>
>> In article <16852D8AA.TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth) writes:
>> >>trimester abortions, which I confess I'm uncomfortable with.  But I
>> >>don't see any problem with aborting a pregnancy in the first three months.
>> >>The fetus is not a child.
>> >        But, Joe, where's the line?   Medically it keeps getting
>> >pushed back closer to conception.   And no matter where it is between
>> >zero and nine months,  it's arbitrary.   Please, please, don't base
>> >judgements on such random parameters.
>> 
>> The line that most of the concerned doctors I know draw is this:
>> 
>> If the fetus is incapable of surviving independently of the mother *without*
>> mechanical assistance or significant medical procedures, it is not yet human.
>> 
>> To me, this seems to be an intelligent compromise -- admittedly,
>> a relatively arbitrary point, but, I think, a reasonable one.
>
>So, do you want to apply this logic to the critically ill?

So, would you mind pointing out where he said anything about "critically
ill"?  Looks like YOU'RE the one who got the idea first, to me...

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
                           I love my country.
                     I *don't* trust my government.
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Bible: Refutations (Long)
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:13:42 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University

In article <exuptr.469.716076917@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>In article <BuBMMJ.5E4@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey) writes:
>
>>I suspect that if you were pinned down, you'd be pretty ignorant of what
>>Jesus said in the first place...that seems to be a basic requirement of 
>>fundies these days.
>
>Bigotry rules the worldly...  

Well, if you don't like the "worldly", you can always go somewhere other
than the world, I suppose...:-)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
             The opinions presented herein are *mine*, not Rice's.     
  (Except for this one:  BEAT THE *&^%$#@! OUTTA TEXAS!!! We both share that.)
                            (and *this* is the year...)