HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Who John Doe (and the anonymous company) is ...
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:13:28 GMT

In article <casseres-090193113941@missmolly.apple.com> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
    >>Stanford issued NO know public OR private apology!
    >>
    >I see no particular reason for Stanford to apologize. An
    >employer is not responsible for every action of its
    >employees.

I'm sure that Exxon will be relieved to know that. But, why do you bring up
the issue of responsibility? I didn't.

After all, if Cox was a child molestor, as it seems, Stanford is NOT
responsible. Although, do you deny that if Cox, in his free time, railed
against feminist PoliticoCorrectFascism that he would have been severely
denounced by Stanford?

Perhaps Steve Mosher (?) could answer for this -- after all, his very
Politically Incorrect observations got him in trouble with Stanford.

Now, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If Stanford is not responsible,
then you must flush away all this "community leadership" and "moral example"
issues. Right?


So let me get this straight -- an employer has no responsiblity or any moral
obligation for what an employee "does on his own"? Right? Even when, as in this
case the boss molests the son of his subordinate. Right? Wrong?

    >Totally disgusting. But hardly novel -- villains of all kinds
    >die and are eulogized every day, by all sorts of institutions
    >including great universities. Why are you suddenly so
    >exercised about this particular case, after *six years*?

Hmm, name some of the these other villians. I'd like to speak out against them
as well.

    >
    >>Now, consider, JUST consider, if the victim was a 14-year old
    >>girl of a single mother. The feminist howls of outrage would
    >>STILL be heard swirling across the intellectually barren
    >>fields of the Politically Correct minefields of Stanford ....
    >>
    >Now consider, JUST consider, if the professor's offense had
    >been a pattern of viciously bigoted behavior toward
    >non-white, non-Christian, female, and homosexual students and
    >employees, and suppose he had committed suicide when he was
    >about to be publicly disgraced for it, and suppose the
    >President and the faculty had stood up and officially said
    >"He was bigoted scum, and it's a good thing he's dead."
    >
    >What would we be hearing from you about that one, Phil?

Bigotry is an attitude, and most examples I've ever heard of were expressed
by speech. I believe in free speech, and I have been convinced by Camille
Pagilia that ALL speech should be uncensored -- i.e., there is no such
thing as sexual harassment via speech only.

In your example, there is a world of difference between rape and the verbal
statement "gee baby, I'd sure like to fuck you".



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Well, even Adolph had to start at thge bottom ...
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:37:44 GMT

SJMN today:

Andy Pugno, 19-year old Political Science major at UC-Davis, self described
as conservative and a Republican, is facing a recall for his seat on
the executive council of the Associated Students of the University of
California.

Andy is very popular -- he has been the LEADING vote getter in the past
two UC-davic student elections.

He is being recall -- but NOT for any wrong doing or any illegal acts.

Seems he voted Politically Incorrectly.

The recall is being led by a FACULTY member, Merline Williams, an
academic advisor in Letters and Sciences. Merline is also the campus
advisor to NOW.

The controversy?

Andy voted against two bills - one that would give the campus
"Sexual Assault Advisory Board" the power to author legislation.
And he voted against a bill to ban ROTC.

His opponents charge that the sexual assault vote indicated that
Andy was "against the best interests of female students" and that
his ROTC vote was against "the best interests of gays and lesbians".

Again, note that Andy has been the leading vote getter for two elections.


Well, even Hitler had to start somewhere.

Some Ostrich-heads pretend that Political Correctness doesn't exist. It
does -- it's alive and slowly growing -- the New Age version of
fascism.

The SJMN points out how the administration sees nothing wrong with the
faculty leading the recall as Merline's efforts are "[something] she
does outside her job with the University".

We'll have to remember that line -- but, it is not suprising as most
University facult (in the US) are a. Very Politically Correct, and b.
Democrats, which are also predominantly PC.


Sig Heil Merline - fuck democracy, how dare a popularly elected person
vote against the way YOU want. Too bad we don't have no labor kamps, eh?




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Is this wrong, or what?
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:41:31 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1993Jan4.234412.2201@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.201243.25476@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>    >Question: Why are you keeping the identities of John Doe and
>    >the company secret?

>Very good question. Tell you what, I'll answer it now, if you in turn answer
>MY question ("is this sick or is it just me?").

It sounds sick, but your refusal to post the name of the ocmpany and
the identity of John Doe made me smell a rat.  I still smell
something.  Give me all the facts and then I'll give you a firm answer.

>In a few days, I'll reveal the name of the company. Plus details that make it
>even more sickening (but couldn't be revealed without giving it away).

>To some people, this is a "Very Politically Correct(tm) Company", and I wanted
>a straight answer without names clouding the issue.

>Now, what is YOUR response to John Doe?

>And as a bonus question, why didn't you answer with your response, but only
>asked what the name of the company is? BTW - it isn't Oracle, so don't
>worry.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: I am a great skeptic on 2nd-hand stories (was: Re: Is this wrong, or what?
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 11:07:05 PST

In <1993Jan5.092018.12391@netcom.com>, Phil Ronzone writes:

>In article <1iamliINNa0c@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hau
>    >I think his question is valid- knowing the name of the
>    >company may change the scope of perceptions about why they
>    >acted in the purported way that they did. Whether this
>    >company is PC or non-PC is irrelevant.

>Why? A man molests a minor. He kills himself. The company does not
>apologize. It lauds the molestor.

>Why is the name of the company important? Why?

I'm going to receive major flamage for saying this, but I agree with you on
this one.  The politically correct types don't despise racism and sexism as
much as they despise the *politics* of those who commit it.  That's why you
never see any complaints from groups like NOW when a Kennedy mistreats a
woman.  But if Clarence Thomas--a man who believes in (generally) less
government, which the PCers despise--is even alleged to have committed minor
offenses (let's face it, harassment is minor compared to rape and manslaughter)
then all hell breaks loose.

I think some of the responses you got to this indicate that.  The people who
have responded don't want to rip a company with a good, politically correct
record.  However, if it's not a politically correct company, they'll tear it
to shreds.  Why is molestation of a young girl (and the corporate attitude
about it) acceptable just because the company in question is good and liberal?

I wish they'd just admit it.  I can respect differences of opinion.  I can't
respect lies and intentional deception.

Here come the flames rolling in.  It's time to duck.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to
 teenage boys." -- P. J. O'Rourke
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: pressure those nasty Bay Area cable companies!
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:20:50 GMT
	    <106184@bu.edu>
	    <1icmcfINNoiq@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1icmcfINNoiq@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:

>In article <106184@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

In article <13784@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.uucp (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>>>How about learning to read for pleasure, instead of being a slave to the
>>>opiate of the masses?

>>Isn't it ironic, though,  that the biggest competitor to television as a
>>mind-enslaver is a certain Book?
	
>Touche- it is true that just reading does not make you any better off then
>watching TV unless, you have know what your reading and have an open mind to
>read and attempt to understand the spectrum of the human condition and 
>ideas.
	
>Both media can be made to serve a particular bias and ideology.

To clarify my previous remarks, let me say two things:

1. I agree with Cramer strongly in that the vast majority of TV is
   pure unadulterated pablum. This is not to say that there are not
   similar problems with certain printed matter that deign to pass
   as "literature". Stephen is right in that an open and critical mind
   will be better off in picking and choosing from a wide variety of
   media.

2. To be multiculturally more equitable, I should have referred to
   "certain Books" in the plural. Most definitely!
	        ^
Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: dangerous group (was: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ)
Keywords: Phil,Ronzone,foam,mouth,bite,rabies,look,out
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:34:00 GMT

In article <13750@optilink.COM> brad@optilink.COM (Brad Yearwood) writes:
>TV: is it actually worth paying for?  All the local cable company does is
>to deliver, however extravagantly, a bunch of mind-rot which partitions
>experience into 12-minutes-between-commercials chunks.  Do you really want
>your kids growing up with a 12 minute attention span?

Eh?

Most of the programming I watch doesn't have commercials every 12 minutes.
Of course that's because I watch PBS.

Also, the few free (and 1 cheap) movie channels I get also don't have
commercials.

And even some of the programming I watch that does have commercials is well
worthwhile.  And commercials afford convenient times for trips to the
bathroom, or to get snacks from the kitchen, etc.  And it's good practice
in learning to ignore worthless garbage.  And there are a very few
commercials that ARE worth watching, and if you have children you can use
commercials as teaching aids to point out various brainwashing techniques,
errors in logic, etc., etc.

It's all in what and how you watch.  It's just like reading -- there is trash
and there is mediocre and there is supurb in both books and on TV.  One must
learn to discriminate and choose and control.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

PL/1, "the fatal disease", belongs more to the problem set than to the
solution set.
		-- E. W. Dijkstra
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Cable TV: Disorganized Crime, Was: Re: dangerous group
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:30:23 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1993Jan7.022940.17081@netcom.com>, by altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay):
> In article <13818@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:

>>Much of the schlock on AMC, HBO, etc. is duplicated by the
>>terrestrial based stations.  Those whos addictions are severe
>>can receive transmissions through earth orbiting transponders.

> Your ridiculous attitude makes it about not worth responding to,

Motto of the week, folks.

> but just for the record, AMC shows old movies, many of which
> are not broadcast by other stations.

Funny, I can receive half a dozen stations that show these old
movies.  Of course, if you really want choice, there are the
video stores as well.

> They also don't run commercials.

But these are neccessary to assauge the average American's
attention span.  Also, they are a good time to go to the
bathroom.  Come on, let's face it:  we've all been in the
situation where we were entranced by something on PBS, and
we had to hold our bladders literally for hours.

> I don't take HBO, but not everything they show is shlock.
> Show me some of your interests, and we'll see what's shlock.

Sorry about that.  Of course what I said about shlock was my
opinion and not fact.  In any event, my interests aren't that
relevant because they are not the same as anyone else's.

When I do partake, I like to watch stuff that is outside my
field of knowledge.  For example, last night I watched an
interesting program on PBS about how the cigarette companies
direct their marketing efforts towards black youths who smoke
and die off at a higher rate than similar white folk.  80% of
blacks smoke menthols, which is an anesthetic to the throat,
and makes it easier for smoking newbies to get hooked.  This
was all new to me, and in my opinion is far from shlock.

Cheers -- Mark

-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Well, even Adolph had to start at thge bottom ...
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:40:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.170753.2785@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
    >>Sig Heil Merline - fuck democracy, how dare a popularly
    >>elected person vote against the way YOU want. Too bad we
    >>don't have no labor kamps, eh?
    >>
    >Seems to me that Mr. Pugno is free to vote the way he sees
    >fit as a member of the executive council of the A.S.. Also
    >seems to me that people are free to launch a recall campaign
    >against him if they don't like the way he votes. If he is as
    >popular as you say, he should win the recall easily. Frankly,
    >I have trouble understanding what you are complaining about,
    >seems to me that we have a group of people exercising their
    >freedom of association - something you seem to favor.

Well, as Merline, being a faculty member ind a NOW local leader, is rather
more powerful that Andy, look at it this way.

A relatively powerless person is elected on the basis of his platform. He
upholds his platform and votes per his campaign promises.

A very powerful person, upset at this, along with the election of someone
they disagree with, uses non-Democratic means to subvert this democratic
procedure.

For example, "slap" lawsuits, which are aimed by powerful/wealthy figures
against those that oppose them and are relatively much less powerful.

In short, they are "Walshing" him -- turning political disagreements into
"crimes".

Yes, as long as there is FOA. But, the PC trend has been to coercively punish
those with anti-PC thoughts. (An example will be posted soon).

For example, the Statement of Academic Freedom and Tenure, which is accepted
at all California instituions of higher learning that receive public funds,
states that students and faculty "they should be free from INSTITUTIONAL
censorship or discipline".




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Is this wrong, or what?
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:13:43 GMT

In article <13826@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
    >Odd. Lots of people are charged with child molestation, and
    >fight it out in court. For example, the former San Clara
    >County Supervisor who was accused, and later found innocent.
    >Oh yes, messy divorce proceedings were involved.

Yes, In 1991, over 50% of all "messy" divorces had charges of child
molestation (messy = court requested arbitartion attempts). As a result,
childs of child molesting are place much lower in "significance".


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Well, even Adolph had to start at thge bottom ...
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:45:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.172306.3246@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
    >In article <1993Jan5.090300.11605@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>Now, given that the rules are of a democratic nature, one
    >>would expect that no one save an idiot or a fascist would
    >>have a popularily elected person (at least twice mind you --
    >>so his platform(s) is well known) be "recalled" for
    >>implementing his platform.
    >>
    >Ahh, I see. He was popularly elected by a vote of the student
    >body, this is good. Fine so far.
    >
    >>Now the essential point is that Merline is upset that her
    >>views are not supported by a democratic process -- so she
    >>tries a coercive process.
    >>
    >Umm, Merline is trying to get him removed by a vote of the
    >student body, this is coercive. I'm starting to get a little
    >fuzzy on the logic here.

Oops, as my scanner is down, I type things in and I do skip paragraphs.
Merline first tried administrative procedures, and is now organizing a
recall using faculty resources. As that constitutes outside influence,
and given the power of faculty .vs. a 19-year old student, I'd say that's
not a recall, but a coercive vendetta, especially for a REPUBLICAN
political sceince major.

Now, if the students had on their own launched a recall effort, for these
very same reasons, sure, no problem. That's FOA.

But faculty led, sponsored, and supported? Isn't that typically against
the rules for any student election???


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Why Do We Have Separate Restrooms? (WAS Re: Gays, the military...)
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:11:16 GMT

In article <lkn69lINN9lh@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham) writes:
    >You, however, presented the case of the professional athletes
    >and tried to generalize that evidence to the rest of the
    >population. Yet you presented no proof or argument that his
    >sample was generalizeable.

Why should it be needed? I know of nothing relevant to make it NOT
generalizable. The superior physical ability of athletes is the only
difference I can see.

    >I have fairly obvious reasons to think so and Mr. Hauskins
    >has echoed some of them in his posting, but it doesn't
    >matter. What matters is the validity of the sample and ...

Uh, tilt. Why the evasiveness is posting your "obvious reasons"?


    >things. If any thing, |> given the egos and high self esteem
    >of pro's, it should be the inverse.
    >
    >... that you also seem to feel that there is evidence that
    >the sample doesn't represent the general population. You
    >yourself acknowledge that the experience and emotional
    >background of the professional male athlete is markedly
    >different than that of the general population enough to skew
    >the statistics. By your own admission, then, the data is
    >invalid in making any conclusions about the general
    >population.

No, irrational phobias, which is what is being claimed of this supposed
"homophobia" is, like most such phobias, higly correlated with LOW
self esteem -- if anything, pro athletes should be the MOST accepting.

And, then, what about the uproar about the lesbians on the tennis tour
seducing the teenagers? Was that a valid concern or not? Mothers and
fathers were very concerned about 15-year old girls being seduced by
lesbians -- said concern being from the unwitting sexual context.

I.e., introducing males into locker rooms of 15-year female tennis players
WILL lead to sexual encounters -- females would be O.K., except when they
are lesbian. Then the sexual context is disrupted (from normal expectations).


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Cable TV: Disorganized Crime, Was: Re: dangerous group
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:52:36 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:

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

It's called "greed".  There _is_ such a thing as a fair and reasonable
profit that serves equally well the two purposes of providing sufficient
profit for the stockholders and making most customers feel that they are
getting their monies worth.  It is not necessary to push the former to
the upper limit while pushing the latter to the lower limit.

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

But do you get CNN, Nickelodean, Arts & Entertainment, American Movie
Classics, USA, Lifetime, The Family Channel, Bravo, TBS, TNT, MTV?  I
personally want those services and I use them.  I live in a condo, so
putting up a satellite dish is not possible.  If you can tell me how
I can get the above services through some means other than my one-and-
only cable company, I am all ears.  Until then, don't give me this
crap that it's not a monopoly.  Just because it's not a monopoly on
the types of television services that _you_ are interested in doesn't
mean that it's not a monopoly on the services that other people want.

Your argument is the same as arguing that PG&E is not a monopoly because
you can just use candles and a kerosene heater.

--James Preston