HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Support for Clayton's Crusade?
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:04:18 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

Taken from a posting by Brian Kane (who was posting for someone who wished
to remain anonymous):

>I believe that Clayton, and people like him, have
>caused *far* more damage, and are a *far* greater threat, to society than child
>molestors.  (Don't get me wrong; raping children *is* a bad thing.  But Clayton
>is even worse.)  Perhaps this is why he has recieved *no* support at all for his
>agenda, as reported by Paul Bartholomew.

This is not entirely correct, so let me clarify this.  First of all, Mr.
Cramer has been posting on this and related subjects for about a year and
a half now.  In all that time, I can remember only three people who expressed
any kind of public support on the ca.politics newsgroup (I don't read the
other newsgroups he cross-posts to).  Phil Ronzone is one, although Phil
has not endorsed all aspects of Clayton's crusade.  Phil's concern seems to
be more toward the Freedom of Association aspect of homosexual civil rights
bills.  I don't remember the names of the other two because they posted for
such a short time.  One, in particular, was even more homophobic than Mr.
Cramer, hard as that is to believe.  He was the one who brought up the
"abused child dragged around by a couple of dykes" issue.

About two months ago, I first started asking people to respond to me via
e-mail telling me what they thought of Mr. Cramer's crusade.  I specifically
wanted to find out if anyone supported even a small part of his agenda.  I've
renewed the request for e-mail several times since then.  The result?  Not
one person has come forward, even anonymously, to say that they support
Mr. Cramer's efforts.

Let me ask this one more time:
Is there anyone reading this newsgroup who supports Mr. Cramer's crusade?
Is there anyone who agrees with any of his positions on homosexuality?
Is there anyone who believes that he has established a credible link between
homosexuality and child molestation?
Is there anyone who believes that this crusade is being conducted in an
appropriate manner or in the appropriate newsgroups?

Please send me e-mail at the address below whether you agree or not.  I
absolutely guarantee anonymity within the best of my ability.  I'll simply
read the message and delete it immediately.  I'm not going to write down
anyone's name or e-mail address and will not even respond to the message.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Some more about 'RIGHTS'
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor)
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 20:36:23 PDT
Distribution: world               
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
> In article <BvnGD7.53p@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>     >>Secondly, if all this "Randroid drooling" is so "weak", why,
>     >>then, it should be extremely easy for you to post your
>     >>refutations.
>     >>
>     >Look, take some courses in logic. The onus is on the person
>     >making the *positive assertion* (that's you) to prove it. If
>     >I said "bander- snatch are frumious" (a positive assertion)
>     >how would you go about DISproving it? You can't. But that
>     >doesn't mean my claim is correct. The responsibility is mine
>     >to define "bandersnatch" and "frumious" and describe how I
>     >reached my conclusion.
>     >
>     >Rand's assertions are simply undefined and unsubstantiated
>     >claims.
> 
> Well, then, per your post, PROVE IT. I have a dictionary of Rand's
> terms, and it has 350+ pages in it. And she has at least a dozen
> books that substantiate her philosophy.
> 
> Next?

An appeal to authority???  From Phil?!

You're starting to sound exactly like a Bible-thumper, waving
the book in my face.

>     >>Every entity has the right to pursue survival in the way it
>     >>has evolved too. A lion has a right to [try to] hunt to live,
>     >>a rabbit has the right to try and run away from predators,
>     >>and so on.
>     >>
>     >According to what? Why do you think this is true? This is a
>     >good example of the sort of unsubstatiated "thinking" that is
>     >at the base of your philosophy.
> 
> Pretty dumb, ain't ye?
> 
> As I said, and you edited out, that is a moral premise.
> 
> Since you don't know what that means, no what it implies, look
> it up. Then apologize for your stupidity.

You said "Every entity has the right to pursue survival in the way it
has evolved too[sic]."

If an "Entity" has evolved to pursue survival in some specific way,
how could it do otherwise?  And not being able to do otherwise, how
can it have a right to something it cannot avoid?  What is the meaning
of that?

That's like saying "Every Entity has a right to die."  That's pretty
useless, since no one can avoid death.  Big deal, nice to know that in
a purely Libertarian society, I won't get a ticket for croaking.

Well, my survival depends on getting the government to coerce you to
hire me for work.  I have 150,000+ pages of documentation proving this,
paid for by the government, to your 350+ pages of substantiation of
something that doesn't really matter very much in the end.  My right is
bigger than yours.  So there.




[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor <> Long Beach, California
[] mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us <or> mikebat@qdeck.com
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: reid@pa.dec.com (Brian Reid)
Subject: new judge in San Bernadino County?
Organization: DEC Network Systems Laboratory
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 03:31:59 GMT


Last week on an airplane flight I ended up sitting next to a woman named
Linda Wilde who told me that she had just won an election to be a county
judge in San Bernadino County. She seemed to be a real firecracker of a
person and I got to wondering if her campaign was at all newsworthy.
Did any netters in S.B. county see anything worth commenting on?
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:23:31 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Oct11.175030.22125@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <98146@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>What you actually appear to be referring to is the Masters,
>>Johnson, and Kolodny studies which showed that straight
>>unmarried men have about 10 sex partners per year, and that
>>gay men have about 22 partners per year on average. The
>>difference is "two times", NOT "two orders of magnitude"!!!

>Several questions that your article has raised:

>1. Your numbers are VASTLY different than any others.

They're not MY numbers, they're Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny's---the
same researchers from whom Clayton provided data on homosexual behavior.

>2. Your ratio shows women with somewhat MORE sexual partners than
>   men -- a VERY VERY different and unexpected number.

I thought it was surprising, too. But then I thought...who are all these
straight men having sex with...blow-up dolls ??? (actually, having gone
to professional baseball games this year and seen the Neanderthal behavior
in the bleachers, this supposition might not be so wild :-))

Prostitution might also explain it. But it's probably the double-standard
myth (women don't cheat or aren't promiscuous while men are) that may be
troubling you.

>3. The numbers are out of anything I am familar with. The most
>   promiscous men I know might have 2 or 3 different women a year.

Sounds like you know mainly priests.

These studies by the above-mentioned authors covered the years 1977-1986.
Behaviour has been modified since then.

>4. Are the numbers an instance? Does a heteresexual single male,
>   for the period of six months at age 18, have 6 partners, only
>   to then settle down?

They only quoted averages, for both their heterosexual and homosexual studies.

I would expect the general case for both was this sporadic promiscuity followed
by relative monogamy. That is the experience I see in many gay men my age.

>   Note that a key word is unmarried. Are you comparing brief
>   periods in a hetereosexuals life .vs. the ongoing and continous
>   homosexual lifestyle?

That's the best I can do now, until legal and religious homosexual marriages
become widespread (which will be sooner than you may think!)

Brian
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: "He claimed he got involved in homosexual activities 'to punish myself' aft
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 21:39:08 PDT
Distribution: world               
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
> All the elements are present: childhood sexual trauma; drug
> abuse and homosexuality to deal with it; antisocial behavior
> that got him sent to prison.  At least Miller knows why he became
> homosexual.
> -- 
> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
> Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
> your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.

Well, I am gay, and I have never done intravenous drugs, and was never
abused as a child, having come from a caring and supportive family.

I just came out at work Friday, and it was an enormously positive
experience.  Two others also came out.  The response was mostly
positive - people taking the time to send me notes in cc:Mail to pat me
on the back and congratulate me for taking this step.  The ones who
were not particularly pleased started in with the usual why-do-you-
have-to-flaunt-it routine, but by the end of the day, they had picked
up a clue or two, which was the whole point of the exercise.  My
immediate supervisor in particular felt that my coming out was a problem,
but after it was pointed out to him that nothing about me was changed by
what he now knew, he realized that his reaction was HIS problem, not mine.

All in all, it was a VERY good day.



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor <> Long Beach, California
[] mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us <or> mikebat@qdeck.com
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:11:40 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <39144@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:
> In article <athos-071092120015@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
# #You don't know me.  You don't know *what* I think, as evidenced by your
# #remark above.  I would be completely against a teacher leading a prayer,
# #just as I would be a teacher telling a student to stop praying.  
# 
# I can't imagine either a teacher or Boxer telling someone what they
# can and can't think. I can imagine a teacher telling a student to stop

But can you imagine a teacher engaging in ridicule of someone's
religious beliefs, on a regular basis?  Sure.  That's just a normal
day in some public school classrooms.

# talking during class, which is completely understandable. It isn't
# required that everyone else in the room be aware of what you are doing
# while praying. If it is, perhaps a private religious school is where
# you or your kids belong. Vocal prayer does not belong in the classroom
# in _any_ form. I, as an atheist, do not want my kids subjected to
# that sort of mumbo-jumbo when they are supposed to be learning.

It was December.  My daughter was in first grade.  They were singing
various Christmas songs (secular variety).  My daughter, foolishly,
suggested singing "Silent Night."  The teacher's response was, "We
can't do that.  That would be illegal."  Does that make you a little
uncomfortable?  Sort of like, "Can we discuss evolution?"  "No, that
would be illegal."

# #Like I said: neither prohibit nor encourage prayer.  That's all, by the
# #way, Bruce has been saying too.  Unless you can prove otherwise, which I
# #seriously doubt.
# 
# Crap. Crap,crap,crap,crap,crap. Herr Brucie, like the rest of the rabble-
# rousing bible-thumping religious right, er, Republican Party, has not been
# beating on this issue because people are being banned from silent prayer
# in school. They want vocalized, led, religious periods, and the Ten
# Commandments hanging from the walls. You trying to act like this isn't
# the case when everyone knows it to be so is laughable.
# 
# Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering

I don't know where you find such people.  I know that my concern is
that the First Amendment is being very selectively read and 
enforced in certain circles.  It took Congressional action, and
a decision by the Supreme Court, to make it legal for high school
students to get together at lunchtime and read the Bible in a vacant
classroom -- just like any other extracurricular group.  There is
a vigorous effort on the part of liberals to not just stop establishment
of religion, but to suppress freedom of worship.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Date: 14 Oct 92 10:42:36 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <12724@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <98146@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>
> # As for the "digusting" part, then any straight man who beds a different
> # woman every month must also be depraved and disgusting, too. The average
> 
> I would certainly say so -- especially if most of the partners were
> complete strangers, as was the case for gay men.

Why is this "depraved" and "disgusting" in either case?  I'm serious, I
really would like to know why you regard making love to a different
woman every month as offensive behavior.

> # gay man is not incredibly different than the average unmarried straight
> # man. The behavior that Clayton always highlights---gay men who frequent
> # bathhouses and have a dozen partners a night---is clearly on on fringe
> # of a distribution of behaviors. Any attempt to portray it as "NORMAL"
> # gay behavior is outright fraud.
> 
> Yet that's clearly what the study I quoted showed was the norm.

This is an outrageous claim.  Your study showed nothing of the kind.  Read
Brian's paragraph again, please: "gay men who [...] have a dozen partners a
night".  By my arithmetic, that's 4380 partners per year.  Your study
showed nothing like that.  It's statements like this, among others, that
make people refuse to take you seriously.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Mortgage nightmare
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:15:02 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <12693@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) writes:
>But seriously folks, why have government punish an entire
>category of businesses for the unwise practices of a few?
>Why support a lousy mortgage broker?  We had one who was
>a dog, so we dumped him and got a new one.  He is great.
>This is called natural selection, and it has worked well
>for eons.

I haven't found _anybody_ where I work who had a positive experience.
We did in fact shop around, and ended up going through the 
credit union's mortgage broker. Everyone in the mortgage
process screwed something up, usually at my expense.

>If the price of a Big Mac, a Double Whopper, and a Super
>Star went up to ten dollars, would you be calling for the
>making "of some noise at the governmental level?"

I'm not complaining about cost, I'm complaining about performance.
Let me explain:

Mortgage Broker: Sat on paperwork for two weeks after we filed it, let
a loan we had picked out be withdrawn by the lended without 
saying a word, nor attempting to lock it, then let loan slide from
filing on. This person was useless.

Lender: We had to call and threaten to withdraw from the process unless
they got the paperwork together. Numerous errors in initial paperwork, 
which they refused to discuss because our loan was being processed
through the wholesale department. Broker of course had no idea what
the mistakes were or what they had been caused by.
After we were committed to escrow, we had to push on them to get the 
loan funded. In my opinion, they _intentionally_ funded on a Friday to 
cost us extra interest.

Escrow company: Failed to get an up-to-date statement from prior lender,
double charged us on a number of items on the closing balance statement,
and sat on our impound refund for three weeks. This was finally returned 
to us when I called the old lender and asked where it was. No interest,
no explanation.

Frankly, I've had it. The building industry can rot in hell before I
voluntarily subject myself to that process again, unless things change.
Standards for performance is where I want the government to put some
pressure.


-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8724 ba.politics:6146
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: No on 9
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor)
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 19:36:03 PDT
Distribution: world               
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
>
> 12. It is non-federally funded Art.
> --
> I"MNOTBIFF@BIFF"S>SK00L>OF>INGLISH.EDU


But it IS Federally subsidized!  Whatever cost is involved with moving
this group around between .mil and .gov sites was paid for right out of
the Federal budget.

So this means you forgot another point about BIFF:

He provides a means for the poster to control one tiny aspect of
Federal spending.  There's my 15,000 dollars' worth right there.




[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor <> Long Beach, California
[] mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us <or> mikebat@qdeck.com
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Opinons on prop 167?
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:06:46 GMT

In article <22929@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:
>Are there any?
>I am inclined to vote no.  What would make me vote yes?
>

I don't know - maybe the ads against it ?  Seriously, Prop. 167 is
such a big proposal that there is sure to be something in it for
everyone.  However, no matter how you slice it - it represents a
LARGE tax increase.  This is at a point in time when the state's
economy is already reeling.  The Los Angeles area is in a near
depression.  Residential and commercial real-estate values are
plummeting.  To raise taxes in such a situation is sheer lunacy.

I certainly plan to vote no (although I wish they would stop the
scare-tactic ads).

Guido


Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 20:12:54 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: ca.politics

In article <39344@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
wrote:

> Hey Ricky, here you go -
> 
> San Diego Union, Sunday, October 12,1992 Page C-4
> This paper is considered to be one of the most conservative major
> papers in the state.
> 
> Boxer vs Hershensohn on Education
> 
> Boxer - Supprt's Bill Clinton's plan for universal college education, with
> federal loans repayable by public service. Would increase Head Start
> funding. Opposes prayer in schools and voucher programs.
> 
> Herschensohn - Would abolish the Department of Education and disburse
> its $30 billion budget among the states. FAVORS ORGANIZED PRAYER IN
> PUBLIC SCHOOLS, merit pay and competency testing for teachers, and
> a voucher plan that would give an extra $900 to disadvantaged kids.

Mikey,

Quote from Mr. Herschensohn himself: I support *voluntary* school prayer,
merit pay, competency testing for teachers and national testing for
students.

All of my campaign literature talks about "Voluntary school prayer."   

--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:41:41 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <39223@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:
> In article <12673@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #It was December.  My daughter was in first grade.  They were singing
# #various Christmas songs (secular variety).  My daughter, foolishly,
# #suggested singing "Silent Night."  The teacher's response was, "We
# #can't do that.  That would be illegal."  Does that make you a little
# #uncomfortable?  Sort of like, "Can we discuss evolution?"  "No, that
# #would be illegal."
# 
# Not one little bit Cramer. Songs of the sort of "Silent Night" are blatently
# religious, and belong in other venues.
# 
# Evolution, on the other hand, is science, whatever the religious morons
# who try to equate it to creationism might want to believe, and it does
# belong in the schools.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"  What does that last 
phrase tell you?

# #I don't know where you find such people.  I know that my concern is
# #that the First Amendment is being very selectively read and 
# #enforced in certain circles.  It took Congressional action, and
# #a decision by the Supreme Court, to make it legal for high school
# #students to get together at lunchtime and read the Bible in a vacant
# #classroom -- just like any other extracurricular group.  There is
# #a vigorous effort on the part of liberals to not just stop establishment
# #of religion, but to suppress freedom of worship.
# 
# I think it needed to be established exactly where the line should be
# drawn. Would you equally support the use of school facilities
# by young Satanists, Animists, Hare Krishnas, etc.? If any religious

Yes, indeed, I'm not a liberal.  I believe in equal protection of
the law.  The problem is that our schools are extremely tolerant
of New Age religions being expressed and even encouraged, but 
anything that smacks of Christianity is anethema, and prohibited
(until the courts and Congress intervened).

# group is admitted, they all should be. I would insist that their use
# of school property is completely unabtrusive, however.
# 
# Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering

Why?

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics