HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: entropy@world.std.com (Lawrence C Foard)
Subject: Re: Strait folks ain't got no shame
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:50:26 GMT

In article <Sep.1.16.22.53.1992.4717@andromeda.rutgers.edu> <lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu> writes:

I thought this might be of interest to Clayton....


>A UPI item from August 7th that demonstrates clearly the double standards 
>most heterosexuals employ:
>
>
>                  HETEROSEXUAL DOCTORS TWICE AS LIKELY TO
>
>                        HAVE SEX WITH THEIR PATIENTS*
>
>
>>      SAN FRANCISCO -- A new survey finds nearly 1 out of 10 physicians
>>nationwide have had sex with a patient at least once. The majority of
>>encounters were between male doctors and female patients (89 percent)
>>with female doctor-male patient relationships accounting for 6 percent
>>and homosexual encounters 5 percent. One physician said he had relations
>>with 11 different patients while 72 percent reported their contact
>>involved a patient they still were treating.
>
>Few professionals enjoy more rank and privilege in our society than do 
>physicians.  On moral issues, even when the doctor has had no ethical training,
>the opinion of one doctor generally outweighs that of at least 50 other
>citizens with advanced degrees.   Yet you can be absolutely certain that 
>none of the denominational journals will carry this news item or editorialize
>about it.  They simply do not treat the misbehavior of the heteroprivileged as
>just cause for moral outrage.   Unless challenged to do so, few hets 
>are likely to bring out any of the indignation that month after 
>month the Mote-Monitors evoke towards lesbigay persons.
>
>Yes, lesbigay abusers show up in the UPI report too, with only
>one-half our share.*  
>
>Over a decade ago CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION published a study with 
>equally forceful indictment of heterosexual psychology professors.  It did
>evoked only one letter-to-the-editor. (from me)   Heterosexuals find it so much 
>easier to find evil only in those not like themselves.   That has always been 
>the dynamic of idolatry.
>
>Quean Lutibelle/Louie
>
>*The headline is my own.  No strait news agency is morally capable of this 
> candor.  Most studies respected in academia show lesgays to be about 
> 10 percent of the population.  Here they show up as abusers by half that 
> amount.
>
>
>-- 
>  ==========================================================================
>  Louie Crew, Assoc. Prof., Academic Foundations Dept., Rutgers U./NWK 07102
>  lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu                                   201-485-4503
>                    Heteroprivilege is against New Jersey law!


-- 
----          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!         ----
\  /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers        \  /
 \/   and bean eating ways. Accept the #4 into your heart! \/
     Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568        
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:26:10 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep1.222329.9688@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
]by a thing at $x.  sell at $3x.  Profit = $3x-$x= $2x.  Tax rate=50%.
]tax is thus 0.5*$2x=$x.  effective tax rate=tax/profit=$x/$2x=50%.  
]amazing!  let's see that counter example.  

Take a look at the effect of inflation (which is what you are missing):

The amounts shown are current dollars. The amounts in parentheses
are adjusted for inflation

Net Inflation		 0	200%	-50%(deflation)
Buy a thing at		 x	x	x
Sell at			3x	3x(x)	x(2x)
Taxable Profit		2x	2x	0 (x)
Tax Payed		 x	x(x/3)	0 (0)
Net after tax profit	 x	x(-x/3)	0 (x)

Let's look at this case. We bought something for x, and later sold it
at 3x. However, the 200% inflation means that 3x today is only
worth 1x in yesterday's dollar. Thus in the 200% inflation case, we made
nothing, and yet we payed a large tax.

Note that if we ever have deflation, we can sell something at twice
what we payed for it (in constant dollars) and yet not get taxed at
all. 

Thus, without indexation, the capital gains tax is completely irrational.

And that's way we have today... an irrational capital gains tax.

]yea, so.  if your losses=gains (that happens), then you pay not tax.

Only in that imaginary world where there is no inflation. Have you
been paying attention at all?

>i am trying to clear it up for those people.

Not as long as you ignore inflation/deflation. You are just confusing the
issue.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality! - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:30:41 GMT

In article <BtJxD6.4qz@newcastle.ac.uk>, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
} cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
} >ednschmi@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (John Schmidt) writes:
} 
} >>The trouble with a voucher system is that it creates even more opportunities
} >>for marketing than it does for education.  Consider the proposition:
} >>Marketing is basically lying.
} 
} >Wrong. Marketing is about communication and differentiation. Bad
} >marketing which lies about the attributes of a product results
} >in more problems for a company than the slight increase in
} >sales helps. A company which consistently lies about its
} >products will not be in business very long.
} 
} Ho ho ho!!!  IBM: Our products are the best!  Marlboro: You too
} can have Clint Eastwood's sex appeal!  Budweiser: We sell beer! :-)
} 
} A problem with education is that measuring how well a school is
} doing is *very* tricky, so the potential for selecting misleading
} statistics is high.

Doesn't seem to be much of a problem for post-highschool education.
Why wouldn't it work for elementary and secondary education as well?
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43018 alt.politics.elections:12066 alt.politics.clinton:3647 alt.politics.bush:3648
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Cultural Elite?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:25:07 GMT

dp> Don Pajerek
gs> Gary Strand

gs> It's pretty much uncontested that the majority of movie/TV actors, produ-
gs> cers, directors, and so on are liberal, and I believe it's these people
gs> that Dan Quayle is talking about.

gs> Just think for a minute -- make a list of conservative TV/movie stars, and
gs> a list of liberal TV/movie stars. I guarantee the latter list is much long-
gs> er.

dp> There seems to be a pattern developing here:

dp> The Hollywood elite is liberal.
dp> The media (i.e., news media) elite is liberal
dp> The academic elite is liberal.

dp> A couple questions: how many 'elites' have to be liberal before it starts
dp> to appear that *most* 'elites' are liberal? 

  How about a majority of the disproportionately-powerful groups that are of-
  ten called elites?

dp> And if so, why would this be?

  I don't know. Intelligence doesn't have anything to do with it, because it
  is possible to be intelligent and not be a liberal.

dp> Second question: will someone name some 'elites' that are conservative? If
dp> someone can, is there a pattern there as well?

  The corporate elite, the military elite, the foreign-policy elite, etc.

dp> BTW - this use of the word 'elite' if garbage. It's being used as another
dp> tool by Quayle et al to stir up populist resentment of people who are 
dp> richer and/or more successful than average. Seeing as how Quayle himself 
dp> (and Bush, for that matter) was born into something of an 'elite' family, 
dp> he's hardly in a position to bash 'elites'.

  Then again, Ed Asner, Norman Lear, Ted Danson, et.al. aren't really able to
  bash away at the rich, because they themselves are rich. Also, class warfare
  types can't say that "The Rich" are some monolithic (and conservative) group
  because there are plenty of "The Rich" who are liberal, the three men above
  being specific examples.

dp> Or does it become acceptable by prefixing it with 'cultural', another word,
dp> like 'liberal', guaranteed to stir up the mob even more? The Republicans 
dp> have been playing this kind of 'polarization politics' for a long time now,
dp> and I for one am getting pretty sick of it.

  So am I, just as I have the Democrats playing the same stupid game. If you
  want to talk polarization, marginalization, and so on, talk to the rabidly
  PC liberals. Now's there exclusivity for ya!


--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:30:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.113718.27807@cs.ruu.nl> 
rkunenbo@cs.ruu.nl (Ronald Kunenborg) writes:

> A baby is (technically speaking) a parasite on the mother.
> And since it's connected to the mother, an extension of her (it is part of 
> her, feeds "off" her, and generally acts as a parasite or other non-functional
> appendage.

By this reasoning, a newborn baby sucking on its mother's breast is 
(technically speaking) a parasite on the mother.  

>Ronald Kunenborg


Doug Holtsinger

      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
 that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
 we want to be precise)..."
   -- Gloria Feldt,
      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,talk.bizarre
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: ROSEBUD"S LAST WORDS (was Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Cha
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:12:03 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics

In article <65191@cup.portal.com>, lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman) writes:
> look all rosebud was trying to say is
> that it's ok to ingest lots of chemicals which go directly
> into your brain if you don't harm anybody (EXcluding yourself)
> and to love everybody as well.
> 
> i may have been born in the 80s but i'm damned sure
> what the sixties were all about

It's nice to know that you're so certain.  Given your certainty, I
won't worry about whether or not you're *right*, though I might point
out that many people who wer around at the time disagree about 'what
the sixties were all about'.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 03:18:28 GMT

<jbrow@glv.com> writes: (Re: third party voting)
>                                                    If you always play the  
>muddled middle ground, the politics of the country will drift away from what  
>you believe little by little.

But why? Only if my view is in the minority, it seems to me. I don't see how
the evolution to whatever system can't work in the two-party model. Won't the
two parties chase the electorate wherever it wants to go? (In its 
infinitesimal wisdom.)

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41
	<1992Aug30.013328.18969@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
	<EGGERTJ.92Aug31230217@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Sep1.034152.23793@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
Date: 1 Sep 92 09:53:49

In article <1992Sep1.034152.23793@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>   In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug31230217@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
>   # Indeed, a stupid stain would not withstand a sufficiently broad
>   # battery of scientific tests.  Has one been performed?  (your turn)
>
>	   Has anyone (except perhaps yourself) shown a need for one?  Silly
>   possibilities (such as yours) do not count.

Of course if you assume that "mezuza" holes are genuine, you needn't
test them.  A real need for such a test would exist if the holes are
used in the determination of property rights.

>	   If I did not understand it, it is because it is not there.

Mr Makowsky obviously understands everything.

>   # A
>   # hole is not the same as a verbal claim, but demanding full legal
>   # paperwork (note that I did not say accepting a verbal claim) while
>   # accepting a hole is hypocritical.
>
>	   Talk about being silly No. 2!
>
>   # I wouldn't accept either a hole or
>   # a mere verbal claim, myself, as proof of ownership of any property.
>
>	   We are not just talking about a mere "hole".  And if you refuse to
>   accept valid evidence, I hope you never serve on a jury.

What about the holes makes them other than holes?  Are they a special
shape that only a rabbi's drill could make?  Are they lined with
rare materials?  Not that I know of.  I did not say that the holes are
not valid evidence, I merely said that they were not proof of
ownership.  This for two reasons:  They can be faked, and they are not
easily removed in case of legal transfer of ownership.
--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Trust Issue
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 25 Aug 92 13:38:14 EST
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <81167@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
> I truly admire Bush's one great talent.  The man has absolutely no
> political or economic ideas, but he does know how to win elections. 
> Now he intends to make the theme of his campaign "Who do you trust?"
> Do you trust a man who tells blatant lies just to get elected, and
> then apologizes for them?  What do we have to fear from Clinton?  

	That he'll do the the US what he did to his wife (or what he did to
Gennifer :).

> That he won't apologize?  And there appear to be some voters out there
> who are willing to give Bush another chance.  After all, he looks
> sincere this time.  ;-)
> 
> But Bush is a textbook case for future political campaigners.  Pick out
> your weakest trait and fling it at your opponent.  You have to admire
> the audacity.

	Bush is playing, "yeah I broke my promise, but I'm admitting it and
apologizing."  He's putting this up against "I didn't inhale aand I didn't
enjoy it" and "my wife forgives me, and it's none of your business".

	So they're both bad.  Vote for someone else, like the Libertarians.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:08:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <farenebt.714855150@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:

>The idea in voting is to vote for the person who you think will be the
>best for the country (or state or whatever the office). Keep in mind, though,
>most liberals and conservatives believe that their ideology IS the best for
>country. I may not agree with conservative philosophy, but I know its intent
>is not to damage the country. I realize that conservatives really believe that
>their ideology is beter for the country; I just have an honest disagreement
>in that sense. 

Thank you, and kudos.  It is refreshing to see this kind of honesty
and understanding from a self-professed Liberal.

One hears much ad hominem, strawman-making, posturing and
negativism in the political arena these days. It is good to be
reminded that, yes, maybe all those folks who disagree with
you really *do* have an honest opinion, are sincere about
wanting what is best for the country, and are entitled to
their opinions.

I think politics has become debased by appeals to extremism
to gain attention, by substituting volume for undertstanding,
and rhetoric for reason.

If you have a disagreement with someone's ideas, challenge their
ideas, not their personality, character, or motivation.
Calling someone "narrowminded" is itself narrowminded,
calling someone "ignorant" is not itself enlightening,
engaging in ridicule in a discussion is itself absurd.
When we start thinking that the other guys motives are
not sincere (and I don't imagine that I am guiltless in this),
we should remind ourselves:

"I may not agree with <some other political philosophy>, but I know
its intent is not to damage the country."

---
Pat, 
"I may not agree with liberalism, but I know
its intent is not to damage the country."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41926 talk.abortion:33489 alt.politics.bush:2899 soc.singles:23526 alt.romance.chat:17643 alt.peeves:13859
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.romance.chat,alt.peeves
Subject: Those Annoying Coy Conversations
Date: 26 Aug 92 04:50:17 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
] diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:
] > chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
] >> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] 
] >>> ps: and their Restore Our God Given Rights
] >>> to concubines....
] 
] >> Isn't it kind of dangerous leaving this around where the
] >> CatWoman can see it???
] 
] > Hell - when some god walks up to me and says that
] > it's his right to have concubines - he can have them.
] 
] So drieux has hardly had time to get his seat warm on the
] Pope's Chair and he's already been promoted to god???
] 
] Hang on, Diana, your ProblemYoungerMan is on a fast
] careen, er, career track!
] 
] > Of course, he'll have to SUPPORT them also...
] 
] Imho, it's _really_ dangerous to leave this around
] where Darcy and Kellmeyer can see it...


Isn't it just Disgusting how some folks will have these
CutesyCutesy conversations out in public before God and Everyone....

Some things are Just TOOOOOOO Disgusting for words....


ciao
drieux


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41745 ca.politics:7029 ba.politics:4750
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: My Purpose In Getting NAMBLA Shunned
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:47:06 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <11846@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
|> Question: If these statements do in fact represent the beliefs of the
|> people, both hetero- and homosexual alike, how can anyone who opposes
|> child molestation find a way to support NAMBLA - when they refuse to
|> moderate their position to at least exclude prepubescent children? 
|> 

I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of NAMBLA :-)

I do, however, think that they have the right to exist.

Period.

-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 02:20:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.184354.9712@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>
>The article even fumbled handling of the only valid criticism (and
>that of any actual concern to Canadian doctors) of our system, and
>that is to add a market-based efficiency of token $5-$20 deductibles,

User fees are not an efficiency...studies almost always show they
increase costs because of delayed treatment...a global premium with
credits for not using the system would be a much better way to
create incentives for disuse.  Early intervention saves money.
We have to create incentives for doctors not to perform useless
procedures and tests, which is where the greatest waste comes from.

The main problem with the health insurance system in Canada is
that the left for ideological purposes has tried to give the
population the impression that it is free, whereas we really
should be educating the population about how much it actually
costs so more people will responsibly use the system.

Gerald
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Dumb as dumb can be...
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:24:15 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Aug29.175350.25236@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu sez:
>
>Found this Associated Press item on p. 22 of the 8-27-92 Boston Globe:
>
>      AUSTIN, Texas -- Republicans plan to respond to Bill Clinton's
>   Texas bus tour this week by trailing him around the state with an
>   Elvis impersonator.

Some days ago, George Stephanopoulos suggested that this was all too
appropriate for the Republicans: "Dead ideas, dead rock star."

-- 
		   I am of course experienced in teaching
		  and have read the writings of Dana Plato.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42465 ca.politics:7141