HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: pressure those nasty Bay Area cable companies!
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:14:00 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <145252@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, by ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi):

> But they can't be received everywhere.  When I first moved into
> my Livermore house a couple of years ago, I couldn't get a single
> TV station on my television, no matter how I adjusted the antenna.

Don't give up so easily, Ed.  If you cannot get lots of stations
in Livermore with a good indoor antenna and pre-amp, something is
dreadfully wrong.  Recheck all of your connections, and look for
any external noise sources that may be desensitising you TV or
interfering with the TV signals.  Obvious sources are computer,
old motors, anything producing large amounts of static on a cheap
handheld AM radio, etc.

> The house owners won't allow me to install a rooftop antenna (and I'm
> not certain how much that would help in any case), so the only way
> to watch TV is to use cable.

With a rooftop antenna in Livermore, you would probably be able
to receive S.F., S.J., and Sacramento.  Oh, the joys of home
ownership...
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Is this wrong, or what?
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 08:50:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.235733.3659@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: > 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?").
    >>
    >>O.K.
    >>
    >>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).
    >>
    >Note that Phil offers to answer the question "now," asks for
    >a quid pro quo in return ("answer MY question"), and then
    >says he'll answer it "in a few days."
    >
    >Phil, your lies are getting even sloppier. At least before
    >you'd contradict yourself between posts, but now you're doing
    >so only two paragraphs apart.

Your inability to comprehend English is astounding.

Mr. Friedman ask me a question. The question is, as you quoted but obviously
did not read or comprehend, is "Why are you keeping the identities of John Doe
and the company secret?".

I told him why I was keeping the name of the company secret, and that the name
of the company would be revealed in a few days.

Perhaps English is not your native language? Although, the question and
answer above IS pretty basic. Now, I know that being Politically Correct(tm)
requires turning much of your brain off, but THAT much???


Tsk tsk tsk ...



BTW - I'd send the following joke to r.h.f., but, A. It may have already
been submitted, and B. You probably wouldn't see it as a joke.


Why did the chicken cross the road?

Because the Western Eurocentric Male dominated human-race entered its
world, removed its culture and religated it to a life of domestic 
subservience in which it was forced to perform such tasks as crossing the
road (which is symbolic of humanity's rape of the natural world) for the 
sole purpose of entertaining it's oppressors.  However, the fowl would
no longer stand for such injustice, and refusing the derogatory title of
"chicken", is rebelling against a system that has forced it to take part
in such things as contemplating whether it preceded its own child, the egg.
As such it needed to carry it's message to other suffering fowl, who all
happened to be on the other side of the road.



Brawwwwkkk bawwk bawkkk .....


-- 
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: I am a great skeptic on 2nd-hand stories (was: Re: Is this wrong, or what?
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 09:20:18 GMT

In article <1iamliINNa0c@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
    >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 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: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:13:49 GMT

In article <lkjoo2INN3sq@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham) writes:
    >"To be arrested" means "suspected" which is not the same as
    >"guilty". "He had been" should be "He was accused of having".
    >
    >Now if he had been guilty of child molestation, I would
    >sympathise with your feelings. But, the investigation seems
    >to have been cancelled and no trial was held, so you are only
    >speculating. Do you have more information that makes it
    >plainly obvious that the man was guilty that you haven't
    >presented? Did the corporation have that same evidence?

Yes. Now that I've posted the story -- Allan Cox confessed to three friends
that he was going to kill himself and why. Two other families settled with
Stanford over molestation by Cox, although details and sealed.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: pressure those nasty Bay Area cable companies!
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:24:51 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <13784@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (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?
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Cable TV: Disorganized Crime, Was: Re: dangerous group
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:50:49 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan1.212234.14909@netcom.com>, altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay) writes:
> In article <13760@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
# #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.
# #
# 
# OK.  Let me know when you figure out how to get AMC and other worthwhile
# cable stations through the TV antenna.  I didn't get cable in order to save
# going up on the roof.
# 
# John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com

Have you considered that the small advantages of some cable channels,
don't justify having cable service?  I can't imagine what so many
people find so worthwhile about watching TV, that it justifies
paying so much money to cable companies.

Used to have cable.  Now I have an antenna.  Even better, I have a
daughter who, much of the time, prefers curling up with a good book
instead of being mesmerized by the boob tube.  (My son may take a
little longer.)

TV is the opiate of the masses.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
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, 6 Jan 1993 18:37:52 GMT

In article <4941@wet.UUCP> mhi@wet.UUCP (Philip E. Murphy) writes:
    >Phil's argument again proves nothing except a rehash of news.
    >The problem is nothing more than media being manipulated by a
    >large company. Having spent time with the media recently, I
    >can tell you that if they smell a story and they have a gap
    >to fill - they will go after it. If another story comes a-
    >long that story is squelched. It all depends on who is
    >covering the story and what the News Agency's policy is. Of
    >course a phone call or two from Stanford would not make a
    >difference.
    >
    >"Political Correctness" or PC is cop out word used by people
    >who love to classify. I would call lobbyist politically
    >correct - its their livelyhood. PC is another word for "yes
    >man". It is insulting to think that our ability to think
    >objectively - through research towards conclusion is going to
    >be interpreted by some with the copout answer of "Politically
    >Correct". When you use that Phil, and there are others, it
    >only goes to show that you are unwilling to accept the fact
    >that our ideas are arrived at through some pro- cess other
    >than heresay and innuendo on which you thrive.

While of course your contribution is noteworthy and contains some elements
of truth, I would like to point out one fact.

While I have posted a set of facts, such facts being derived from written
acounts as I was not present at the mentioned "incidents", I have at least
posted said facts.

While you are busy "attacking" said facts with innuendo and such insinuations,
you haven't posted one fact, not even from the National Enquirer.

To borrow your style in an imaginary post, some papers report that the world
is round. Of course, as anybody in the newspaper business can tell you,
the news is just what passes for an interesting story. I guess the world
reportedly being round is an interesting story. But don't be sure, because
it is in the papers. Don't sail too far or you'll fall of the edge.


There -- doesn't that make sense? :-)



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Well, even Adolph had to start at thge bottom ...
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:32:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.024058.677@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>Well, as Merline, being a faculty member ind a NOW local leader, is rather
>more powerful that Andy, look at it this way.

Unless Andy is taking a class from Merline, I fail to see how she is
more "powerful" than him in this situation.

>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.

Of course, it could be that this "democratic process" isn't really.  Could
it be that representatives are elected "at large".  If this were the case
then Andy's positions might actually be held by only a minority of the
electorate, but other candidates might split the vote of those opposed to
his opinions.  A recall may allow the entire student body to voice their
support (or lack thereof) for Andy's policies.  I still fail to see how a
recall in any way can be called "non-Democratic".

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

How are they turning anything into a crime ?  They are merely stating that
they oppose his political positions, and are trying to punish him in a 
political forum.  Seems reasonable to me.  Should I not sign a Wilson recall
petition because I am then "turning political disagreements into 'crimes'" ?

>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".

How does this constitute "INSTITUTIONAL censorship or discipline" ?



Guido
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Is this wrong, or what?
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:05:10 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <b0bC035Qc7Bq00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:
> In the first place, you said that the man was *going to be arrested* for
> child molestation.  And you seem to have taken his supposed suicide as
> proof of his guilt.  Based on what you posted, *I* refuse to presume
> that the man is guilty, therefore for me, the entire basis for your
> outrage is non-existent.  Frankly, I am more outraged that our society

Consider the choices:

1. Commit suicide, and let everyone assume that you had something to
be ashamed of, or,

2. Go to trial, and take your chances on being convicted.  If you are
a person of wealth, and have a good attorney, even if you are guilty,
you may create enough doubt to be acquitted.

Sorry, but someone who takes #1 as a choice, is telling me that he
knows he doesn't stand a chance at trial.  I certainly wouldn't use
suicide as proof of guilt for purposes of governmental action, but
for the sort of individual moral judgments we make every day, it's
sufficient.

> has taken on a witch-hunt mentality with regard to child molestation
> to such an extent that the mere threat of *arrest* can drive a man to
> suicide, if that was indeed what happened.  I am also not prepared to

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.

> Secondly, even if I assume that the man was guilty, I wouldn't really
> be outraged at what you describe.  The man clearly was a valuable
> employee of the company; why shouldn't they honor him for that service?
> What does his child molestation have to do with what he did for the
> company?  Oh, I might question the appropriateness of so honoring him,
> given that he molested a daughter of an employee, and I might suggest
> that the medal wasn't really proper under those circumstances, but I
> don't think I would be outraged.

Of course not.  You aren't outraged about child molestation.  WHAT
IN THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?  You must not know any of the victims
of this sort of thing.

> --James Preston


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Is this wrong, or what?
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:47:41 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

}The following is a true "situation" that happended in the Bay area in the
}last five years. It is so unbelievable that I'd thought I ask if others
}have the same sense of outrage that I have.

}If you don't have any sense of outrage, I'd like to know that as well.

I'm not particularly outraged.

In the first place, you said that the man was *going to be arrested* for
child molestation.  And you seem to have taken his supposed suicide as
proof of his guilt.  Based on what you posted, *I* refuse to presume
that the man is guilty, therefore for me, the entire basis for your
outrage is non-existent.  Frankly, I am more outraged that our society
has taken on a witch-hunt mentality with regard to child molestation
to such an extent that the mere threat of *arrest* can drive a man to
suicide, if that was indeed what happened.  I am also not prepared to
assume, based on your posting, that the man really killed himself.  I'll
admit that *if* he described his suicide to friends beforehand, that it
is likely that he killed himself, but that is still hardly proof.  Car
accidents and coincidences *do* happen.

Secondly, even if I assume that the man was guilty, I wouldn't really
be outraged at what you describe.  The man clearly was a valuable
employee of the company; why shouldn't they honor him for that service?
What does his child molestation have to do with what he did for the
company?  Oh, I might question the appropriateness of so honoring him,
given that he molested a daughter of an employee, and I might suggest
that the medal wasn't really proper under those circumstances, but I
don't think I would be outraged.

In any case, like other posters, I would like to know the name of the
company and the person involved; I, too, suspect that there is more to
this story than what you posted.  For example:  (Assuming that the charges
are true) how is it that the molestation went on for five years?  Did the 
employee-father know about it during that time?  Did the executive use
his position of power over the father to get him to go along with it?
If the father did not know, how did the executive get access to the
daughter?  Is that the only girl that he molested?

}I believe Gennifer Flowers.

Why?

--James Preston
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Why Do We Have Separate Restrooms? (WAS Re: Gays, the military...)
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:49:23 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <106181@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.190053.28731@netcom.com>
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>>Oh? I'm not aware of ANY straight men that are "bar goers" that frequent
>>homosexual bars.
>
>You don't know several of my straight male friends, then. Consider yourself
>sheltered.


yes I agree- there is a bar locally that is gay, and on Friday and Saturday
nights there is probably between 15-30 percent of the clientele that is
straight.  They have no problem with it, even if approached they nicely
inform you that they are straight.  And this group is comprised of both
men and women.

There are many places that I have been from Boston to San Francisco that
have a mixed group of people.

Many times, when asked, the straight bar goers say that the gay bars are
the most fun for dancing and visiting.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: pressure those nasty Bay Area cable companies!
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:06:36 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan6.021658.2463@netcom.com>, mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
> In article <13784@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >How about learning to
> >read for pleasure, instead of being a slave to the opiate of the
> >masses?
> 
> Who's talking about religion here?
> -- 
> Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984

Television is the opiate of the masses today.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
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: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:44:12 GMT

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?").

O.K.

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 believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Who John Doe (and the anonymous company) is ...
Date: 7 Jan 93 01:12:20 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan7.001853.3896@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>Five years is old? Hmm, the initial charges against Packwood were based
>on a party in 1973. That makes those charges 4 times older. Wow. Neat.
>

Well I am not talking about someone who is alive.  Isn't Cox dead?  And
with Packwood- well it has no bearing on this topic.  So stop going off
on other things unless you are trying to create some relationship.

And that didn't work...  Packwood is alive and still in office.
                         Cox is Dead.

>
>Cox molested the son of someone he was supervising, and it is none of
>Stanfords business??? Golly, and the initial charges against Packwood

Did he molest this person's son on campus.  Did he (Cox) threaten said
father? 

>occurred at a private party, so it is none of the business of Packwoods
>"employers" (the voters) either, right?
>

That is a fallacious comparison.  Packwood is in the public domain of being
an elected official- he is not in a business or part of a private corp.
If someone does something illegal, why is it the responsibility of the
corp. etc. to make amends?

>    >Well- I believe that if a person makes a mistake in their
>    >lifetime, it does not negate everything that they may have
>    >accomplished. He may have helped and been a great mentor to
>
>Ah, yes. Mussolini supposedly made the trains run on time too. And Hitler
>DID promote great advances in German science too.
>

This is another fallacious comparison. We are talking about an individual
who is purported to have done what we think he has.  We know that what he
did, did not destory a country and kill thousands of people, and torture
thousands of people.

How about a better comparison- Richard Feynman it is rumored was quite a 
womanizer... yes no?

[deleted dribble]

>One mistake??? Some "mistake". If molesting a 14-year old is a "mistake",
>I'd like to know what your idea of a crime is.
>

Maybe your thinking is a crime- becuase you do not operate on facts, but
rather newspaper articles and hearsay and second-hand stories.  This is
an old story too.

>You pedophilia-apologist you ....
>
>

Oh- there it is- that wit and intellectual forcefulness for which you are
well known.

Get off of the witch hunt.  If you have the solid irrefutable facts at
hand, then make your case.  But stop trying to try and convict people
based on second hand information and hearsay.

I would love to see you on trial for some foul deed where people just
say they think they hear, they think they saw, and anyway he is know
to be a bad person, hang em'.