HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.vmxa-l
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:27:36 EST
From:         CCRS@BUACCA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Abend PGT003 when purging large console log

Just a reminder that TDSK is the one kind of "CP" disk space which is
pointless to CP-format, in that it is only managed by CP, and never
written or read by it.  So don't waste your time.
        Dick Sims, Boston University Office of Information Technology
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:38:28 EST
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2
From:         James Sheldon <U7636JI@DOES1.BITNET>
Subject:      I screwed up, this is the REAL "On Rightism, ..."

It strikes me this whole discussion on right vs left neglects the fundamental p
oint that these are relative, as opposed to fixed concepts.  The Nazis clearly
fell within the scope of the political philosophy of fascism, i.e. a dictatoria
l regime based on extreme nationalism and racism.  This was opposed to communis
m which had an economically based, egalitarian, supranational ideology.  The fa
ct that in practice it was hard to distinguish Stalin's Soviet regime Hitler's
Germany was addressed by Eric Hoffer in "The True Believers."  As a practical m
atter, the political spectrum has long been defined in right-left context with
the right traditionally being associated with conservative/status quo philosoph
ies and the left with liberal/reform philosophies. (It's origin of use may even
 harken to something as escoteric as phyisical positions taken during debates.)
However, traditional usage has placed extremists on the end of the spectrum whi
ch their philosphy seems to the logical, extreme extension of.  The spectrum, h
owever, has to be placed in a situational context.  For example, in the former
East Germany most military officers belonged to the Communist Party and espouse
d its philosphy.  Once the Wall fell, these folks didn't rush out and align the
mselves with liberal/socialist West German parties, but the strongly conservati
ve parties.  In China, are those who are staunch Maoists on the left or right.
I guess my bottom line is - why are you guys wasting so much time on this?
Uncle Ernie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:09:35 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Home ownership among the poor es
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Brett' notes regarding non-means-tested gov't cash transfers:
>
>>        Note that method 9 "nonmeans-tested" government cash transfers
 produces
>>a whopping reduction in the poverty rate.
>
>>        Government money transfers change the aggregate income drastically,
>>with nonmeans-tested cash transfers changing the share by 2.3%, once again at
>>the expense of the highest quintile.
>
>>        More than a little support for the supposition that non-wage/salary
>>income distorts the poverty picture.  Home equity doesn't change income share
>>as much as the poverty rate.
>
>So, Brett', are you saying that Social Security, Federal Employee and
>Railroad retirements, Unemployment Insurance and Worker's Compensation
>are bad things because they "distort" the poverty statistics? Are
>you saying that they're bad because the wealthy don't benefit from
>them? (a false assumption)

        Nice try, but the original statement was that not counting non-income
of the poor distorts the poverty rate, which it does.

        When you count entitlements, those that can be classified as "below"
the poverty level goes down.

>What's your real beef?

        That we don't count all sources of money that people receive when
determining the number of people below the poverty line.

>-other Andy
Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 11:00:01 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      some thoughts to take with you on vacation

                        Home Truths
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^

                        Half man,
                        Half beast,
                        Says most,
                        Does least.

                        What is it?
                        It's not an optician
                        Therefore it must be
                        A politician.



I thank you, and Happy Xmas



james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:59:37 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: if I don't want ..

On Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:02:06 MET Grzegorz Albinowski said:
>
>CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET pisze:
>
>>> If I don't want to hire blacks, I don't have to.
>>>
>>> If I don't want to serve blacks, I don't want to.
>>>
>>> If I don't want to treat black employees equally as white employees, I don't
>>> have to.
>
>That's it!

Caius, I just believe that you have proved the Nazis to be right-wing.

You are right wing, you believe in discrimination against blacks, the Nazis
believed in discrimination against blacks (and jews, and catholics, etc),
ergo, the Nazis are right-wing.  (How was the logic, Czar?)
>
>Caius.

james
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Some replies...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:54:33 GMT

Pizz,
>An earlier post asked me if it should be legal for employers to
>stipulate that giving him sex at lunch, or kickbacks of his salary
>would be permissible in a contract, as long as it was stipulated up
>front.  I said I thought not, since both are essentially illegal
>activities in most of the country.

Here's the point that Tim (and I and others) have been trying to
get across.  The original question was about whether or not businesses
should be legally able to discriminate in hiring practices.  If we
are allowed to use as a reason the -legality- of some activity in
determining whether or not it is -legal-, then we have a serious
logic problem.

Your argument is of the form:

Should employers be legally allowed to do X?
No, because X is essentially illegal.

You can plug in for 'X' -- sex at lunch as a condition of employment,
discrimination based on race, what have you.

I wasn't trying to find out what you think about prositution, really.
I just wanted you to realize that your argument isn't very strong.

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:43:51 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Other People's Money
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>>
>>         Majority rule must also be equitable to the minorities involved.
>>
>> Brett'
>
><Snort!>  It's amazing how many conservatives are saying that now that
>their favorite political party is seemingly the minority in Washington.
>
>Very true, though, Brett'.
>Ellen

        Just want to remind everyone

        I'm not a conservative

        I voted against Bush.

:)
Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:32:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: On limiting posts ...

how about those posts that not only quote the whole post everyone already read,
but then at the very end they type something like...."good post".

aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh.

my 2 cents worth:

i don't like the idea of limiting posts.
i don't like the idea of moderating the list.

if people do dopey things on the list, others can embarrass the hell out of 'em
instead of censure 'em. it works for me (but then i embarrass easily).

when i first subscribed to this list someone told me "the delete key is your
friend". i don't want anyone else's delete key to be more powerful than my
delete key.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:37:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl ad infinitum

Hey...what does "Uncl" mean anyway in these topic headers?


Ellen


PS-  Politics!  (just trying to stay on topic)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: new topic -- Queens
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:46:44 GMT

>Are we to believe that it is typical of Joe Average that when he
>can't think of a rational reply, he calls his interlocutor a
>Nazi? Are there really more of those people than there are of
>us? I wonder.

I wonder, too.

I think that there are a lot of them.  And, elitist as it may sound,
I think that they are cultural ballast.  That is, they are stupid, but
they know that they are stupid, so that almost makes them smart.
(A small prize for the first person to correctly identify this
allusion!)  

Deep in his heart of hearts, Robert KNOWS that he can't figure out the
state of the world very well for himself.  So, when push comes to shove,
he will depend on intellectuals to figure it out for him.

This pushes the bounds of ad hominem, I apologize.  

Is truth a defense?

--Jimbo

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:59:46 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: I screwed up, this is the REAL 'On Rightism, .

Hello, James.

>From:         James Sheldon <U7636JI@DOES1.BITNET>

On Right and Left:

While I agree that it isn't exactly a crucial question, I think a bit
of history (I know, out of my bailiwick) might help.

Classically (this cuts against my grain--I usually use "classical"
to mean a MUCH older period, but I guess it's harmless) conservatives
are those who are (1) in favor of the status quo, and (2) are against
injecting rationalism into politics. For example, Burke, who thought
it dangerous to attempt to remake government according to a rational
design, on the grounds that what we (they) had was working ok and
a replacement would be extremely speculative.

Liberals, on the other hand, were classically reformers. They sought
to restructure the social and political order according to rational
principles (esp. including principles of liberty). Their specific
policies and specific reasons didn't have a lot in common. Locke
had Natural Law in mind. Mill had utility. Smith had pragmatism.

There is an important strand of what is today called "conservatism"
that is not at all like the classic kind; the free market strand.
That's much more closely associated with classical liberalism
(as the three examples I gave should amply demonstrate).

Why is Nazism associated with the Right?

I agree that it is because of its nationalism. The nationalistic
appeal was the antithesis of rationalism in politics. But partly
too, I think, because it was so anti-individualistic, in a way
that even Marxism wasn't.

So that's by way of explanation for Caius, I guess.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:57:53 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Look Back in Anger, part 1: Missed Opportunities
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Brett' tells us about scams poor people use:
>
>>         And here's the scenario that most people use:
>>
>>         Assets are transferred to relatives and "friends" (live-in SOs, for
>> example).
>>         Carol Mosely-Braun (Senator-elect from Ill.) got stung by this when
 it
>> was revealed that her mother was using medicaid despite considerable money
 gai
>> from the sale of timber rights--which were transferred to Carol and her other
>> children.
>>
>>         In another situation, a mother of three refuses to marry her
 boyfriend
>> because that would cut off the ADC aid and put both of them off welfare.
 Thei
>> "official" jobs are both below-poverty-line wages.  But they also sell amway,
>> and he runs a pretty profitable insurance price-fixing scam.
>>
>>         Needless to say, that's five more "poverty-stricken" people who
 aren't
>
>Out of 37 million.  Your "most people" is a fantasy.  The overwhelming

        You've misread the statement.  "Most" refers to the people who are
trying to scam, and not "the poor".

>Peter
Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:17:59 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: why gold

I'm scaling down, you'll notice.

>From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>

>>I still don't fully understand this.
>>The total mass of gold in the world, or in Fort Knox, does not
>>increase quickly. But its monetary value could increase quickly.
>>Wouldn't a growing economy lead to a rise in the price of gold?
>
>No, the value of gold would be held constant, at for example $35.00
>per ounce.

You mean the government would tell everyone that they could not buy
or sell gold for more or less than that price? Somehow I find it
hard to believe that this is advocated by a fan of the Hayek
Institute.

>>>(Why is deflation a bad thing?)

[explanation mercifully deleted]

>>Well, I believe these effects actually occur only when the deflation
>>(or inflation) is not expected. But if the country knew that it was
>>on the gold standard, it would obviously expect deflation.
>>Anticipated deflation cannot possibly have the effects you've mentioned.
>
>Depends upon who is doing the planning; will interest rates on credit
>taken out prior to planned deflation be adjusted, will the amount of
>principal outstanding be adjusted to reflect the larger value of the
>dollar after deflation? If not the pressure of high payments on credit
>could cause serious ill-effects for both business and consumers, if the
>deflation were profound enough.

I figured we'd let the market answer these questions. And here is how
I think it would answer them.
Interest rates on credit will obviously be adjusted, since everyone
knows we're about to have deflation, so no one would pay the higher
rate (and plenty of people would be willing to lend at the lower rate,
since in a deflationary period even the lower rate would be profitable).
Principal outstanding wouldn't be adjusted. Interest rates would handle that.

I'm satisfied that I understand most of the mechanisms reasonably
well. And it seems to me that a gold standard would not produce
any of the advertized benefits. Indeed, if it includes a government-
mandated price for gold, I think it would produce some fairly
serious problems.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:51:50 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: new topic -- Queens

I would first like to remind readers that Michael Morse was,
shortly after he first signed on to the list, excoriated by
some regulars (but not by me, of course) for his tone. Come
to think of it, I'm not sure why that's relevant. But it seemed
like a good idea to mention it.

In any case,

>From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

(MichaelM)

>>May I respectfully suggest to all Politics-L members with opposable
>>thumbs that they cease wasting their time by talking "with" Robert?

(Though I pride myself on my thumbs, I chose to ignore Michael's
advice, and later regretted my decision.)

>>Ther  reaches an extreme point on the perspective of right and left
>>where the speaker is clearly not in rational control of what they're
>>saying and thinking.
>>MWM
>
>Don't you mean to say, it's not always pleasant to be confronted with the
>truth?  It appears that a great many participants on Politics-L are
>students and faculty of higher education, in other words, active
>participants or captives to the great and noble agenda of liberalism.
>That is precisely why you don't like to hear from me.

Speaking for myself, that is not precisely why I don't like to hear
from Robert. The reason I don't like to hear from him should be clear
soon, though, if it isn't already.

>Although I am
>in higher education, I am not a faculty type.  I am more a Joe Average.
>When you swing open the doors of your ivory towers of academia and come
>out to play in the real world you're going to find a heck of a lot more
>of me than of you.

Perhaps. But let's see if we think this is the kind of thing that
Joe Average might say to someone who is trying to discuss logic
with Joe, and trying to have a rational debate:

From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

Addressed to me (Jamie):

>I have nothing in my existence with which I can relate to your last
>statement.  Upon reading it, I simply felt sorry.  Humanity hasn't
>really traveled very far from Auschwitz.

Are we to believe that it is typical of Joe Average that when he
can't think of a rational reply, he calls his interlocutor a
Nazi? Are there really more of those people than there are of
us? I wonder.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Return-receipt-to: "KirkpatrickH" <kirkpatrickh@mumcbm.rferl.org>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:00:11 U
From:         KirkpatrickH <kirkpatrickh@MUMCBM.RFERL.ORG>
Subject:      RE: Spike Lee and Racism
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>Kirk,

>26000 incidents of racism in the past month????  Isn't that figure a
>little high?  Anyway, I for one would be interested in hearing more
>about what is going on over there in Germany from the perspective of
>someone living there.  How bad are thee conditions?  Are you
>experiencing problems as an American?  Do you have any anecdotes or
>things you've observed personally?  You say you get to watch it happen.
> Please tell us about it!

>Pizz


Maybe 26000 is too high but that is the figure reported by ARD (1st channel
government owned) 2 nights ago for "significant incidents".

The conditions are probably worse for foreigners in Germany then for minorities
since there are societal and legal institutions designed to stop such in the
US. these do not exists here.

I have many anecdotes, very few of them personal, that we can discuss. The
situation for Americans here is like for most Western Europeans other then
Italians who seem to be disliked more.

Again, it is comical to read the "accusations" from people who live in the US
that the US has "institutionalized" racism. To my knowledge, minorities have
more protection in the US than any other country that I have experenced, other
than perhaps, Holland. I wonder how many would make the same accusations after
living here for a while where it is real.

Best,
Kirk

PS It is 0930 inthe  morning here! Your response to the post was so fast. Are
you still up or are you in Europe too?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:10:44 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: vote
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Terwilliger" at Dec 15, 92 1:35 pm

Joseph D Terwilliger pisze:
>>
>> Brett
>>
>>      I AM a Conservative
>>
>>       I voted against Bush.    (PAT BUCHANAN RULES!)
>>
>> --Pizz--
>>
Who did you vote for?

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:09:26 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: 70% Human

>        Equal pay for equal work.  Period.
>-T.

  It is, of course, relevant to note that women earning
$0.70 on average to every $1.00 earned by men on average
does not imply that there is not equal pay for equal work.
Women earning, on average, $1.00 for every dollar men
earn does not imply that there is.

                      -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:18:32 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: laffer

From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>

> Your curve suggests that people are so lazy (or so honest) that they pay
> all taxes unless they reach 80-90%.

I (so did my curve) assumed no such thing.  The reason my curve started
falling off when reaching 100% was your fact #2 with which I agreed.
(That revenues drops to zero at 100% rate.)

I also agree that when the top marginal rate is increased beyond
some level, some people start working not as hard as before and
therefore the revenues will start to drop.

> Caius.

--KAT
From: U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU (rufus t. firefly)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: On Rightism,
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:14:27 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> VALENTINE M. SMITH pisze:
> >>
> >> I went back to the original post of "Caius" denying that Nazis were
> >> right-wing, and added two that have been written in the past two days
> >> on this theme, and will cite several passages within this post from
> >> two "centrist" (as I've heard them labelled) historians - Alan
>
> [280 lines deleted]
>
> Are you going to convince me by VOLUME? Do you think that a lie repeated
> more than, say, 1000 times becomes true.
>
> Please tell me a single fact, other that quotation from "scientifical
> sources", that can show us that the Nazis where right-wing.
>
> And plase do not tell us about concensus. There is NO concensus.
>
>
> Caius

  caius, no one to my knowledge has called you a nazi, or is likely
to in the future. as far as i can tell, you are either very afraid
or very angry. why?

  if you want to be right-wing, go ahead. it won't make you a nazi.
expressing certain views might make some people think of you as one,
though. calm down. please.

  " right-wing =/= nazi "

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU