HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:43:47 GMT

In article <8412.26848@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM> bruce@godzilla.swdc.stratus.com (Bruce Overby) writes:
    >Once more, I'll ask, why is it important for "people" to
    >accept the concept of absolute rights? Isn't it implicit in
    >the absolute nature of these rights that people have the
    >right to not accept this concept? And what difference does it
    >make if people do accept it? Either way, you've still got the
    >rights, right? To relate this back to the DOI (where this
    >thread began), what do you care if the document is composed,
    >signed, and adopted? What difference does it make?

Well, because it's like the Jews and the NAZIs. The NAZIs wanted to
violate the rights of the Jews (and a whole lot of other people as
well).

The NAZIs didn't want to accept that these other people had rights.

So a few people on our side, like G. Patton and M. Clark had to sit
down and reason with them so to speak.

In short, the tendency for evil to run rampant is always alive -- and
as it is so tiring to fight wars all the time, it's a lot more practical
to get 'em to realize that it ain't right.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 16:05:35 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep26.150640.16716@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
    >Self-loathing is such a pitiful thing, even in those in whom
    >it's so clearly justified.

It's O.K. Melinda -- you'll get over it.

    >Anyway, the information was published in the Ithaca Journal
    >over the summer. Local Law C passed last December, so I'd
    >head right down to my library and start pouring through IJs
    >from, say, late December through early February if I were
    >you.

Wow -- a newspaper! Well, I guess you can junk all them old scietific journals
and realy on the newspapers, eh?

I asked for some hard evidence, such as presented to LEAA or NCIC. I guess
you don't have any, so we'll just junk your "claims" with the rest of
the National Enquirer stuff. Look, over there Melinda, it's ELVIS!!

Thought so ...


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: aa001@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tom Grundner)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Campaign '92 Documents Available--FREE
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:02:32 GMT
Reply-To: aa001@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tom Grundner)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu



   The National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN), is pleased to 
announce a new service for the duration of Campaign '92.

   We are teaming-up with the American Cybercasting Corporation to 
provide special Campaign '92 newsgroups to Internet hosts anywhere 
in the world--for FREE.

   These will be special moderated newsgroups containing the full-
text of the position papers, speeches, press releases, fact 
sheets, (and anything else we can obtain) from the campaigns of 
the REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, and LIBERTARIAN parties.  Each item will 
be carried complete and un-cut, and each is obtained directly from 
official sources within the respective campaigns.  (These are NOT 
discussion groups--you can get that in alt.politics.<whatever>.  
They are moderated newsgroups containing pure campaign information 
for your study and analysis.  You can argue about it somewhere 
else.)

   These special newsgroups will be delivered directly to your
host system by ACC.  The value is obvious for political science 
classes, students, faculty, staff, and anyone else who wants the
FULL story and not just sound-bites and factoids.

   To obtain the newsgroups, have some decision-maker at your 
computing center send an e.mail message to: usa@americast.com 
and all will be made manifest by return e.mail.  The message
MUST contain the name, title, and institution of the person
making the request somewhere in it.

   To repeat, there is no charge to receive this service from
American Cybercasting (although donations to NPTN will be 
gratefully accepted).

-- 
T.M. Grundner, Ed.D
President, National Public Telecomputing Network
Box 1987
Cleveland, Ohio 44106
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Date: 3 Oct 1992 18:10:41 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

Pete Zakel writes:
>[about ways to avoid inheritance tax]
>If you don't want them to spend it until you die, put it in a trust, in their
>name, with certain stipulations.  I believe this is possible.

I'm sure that's true; I don't know what the present [sic] rules on 
gifts are.  However (& my knowledge of this is miniscule) I believe
the income from such trusts is taxed at the parents' rates by the Feds
until the child is 14, & at that point the child's income is considered
her own & assessed separately.  Consult a real tax advisor for the
real story.  & keep in mind that this could all change the next time
somebody comes along with a great idea for tinkering with the tax code.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:45:48 GMT

In article <athos-130992192731@kip2-47.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>
>Look, it's very simple.  If I sacrifice my entire life to set aside money
>for my children, why is it that people like you think it's fine if the
>government now steals a portion of what I managed to save for my children?

If you are really saving it for your children, give it to them as you go.
Gifts under a certain amount aren't taxable, so if you give it to them on
an ongoing basis, it won't be taxed.

This completely avoids inheritance tax.

If you don't want them to spend it until you die, put it in a trust, in their
name, with certain stipulations.  I believe this is possible.

I know living trusts also avoid certain things, but I don't know enough about
them yet to know if they can be used to avoid inheritance tax.

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

There was a young man who said "God,
I find it exceedingly odd,
	That the willow oak tree
	Continues to be,
When there's no one about in the Quad."

"Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd,
For I'm always about in the Quad;
	And that's why the tree,
	Continues to be,"
Signed "Yours faithfully, God."
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:24:23 GMT

In article <2745@uswnvg.uswnvg.com> dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro) writes:
>In article <12559@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
    >: :Supporting the right of someone to do something unpleasant
    >:(free speech, homosexual sex, drug abuse) isn't the same as
    >:supporting them. They have the right to do it -- as
    >unpleasant :as I find it.
    >
    >I can't believe he just said that. Here -- let me replace one
    >set of words.
    >
    >"Supporting the right of someone to do something unpleasant
    >(NAMBLA marching in some parade) isn't the same as supporting
    >them. They have the right to do it -- as unpleasant as some
    >find it."
    >
    >There's your answer Clayton. Right out of your mouth and
    >right before our eyes, for everyone to see.
    >
    >The very thing that many have told you again and again, and
    >you have refused to acknowlege, has been uttered by your very
    >lips.
    >
    >There. You understand. Your crusade is over. Time to get a
    >life.

Donn --

You have a problem here. Clayton (and I as well) have stated over
and over again these very principles.

Perhaps if you didn't confuse "I don't like it" with "there should
be a law against it" you'd understand.

Like NAZI marches, Clayton and I believe the NAZI marches HAVE EVERY
right to march.

But, boy oh oy, Clayton and I also have every right to dislike
disdain and not employ or associate with (etc.) anybody that
marches in the NAZI parade.

In short, NAMBLA has every right to march, but we also have every right
to strongly shun that disgusting group.

I'm sure you support the right of the NZAIS to march (or am I wrong),
ye would YOU associate with someone you saw marching with 'em?




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5896 ca.politics:8478
From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:17:50 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
>> mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
>alias rn rn -i=50
>>I don't follow this at all -- it sounds like nonsense to me.
>>Anyway, I don't see how Somalia enters in to a discussion
>>about public schools & the voucher system.
>Now, either children A). DO HAVE A CLAIM ON MY EXISTENCE or B). CHILDREN
>DO NOT HAVE A CLAIM ON MY EXISTENCE.
>...
>Or do you assert that somehow children in America have a right to force
>me to pay for their education, but children in Somalia don't have a right
>to force me to pay for their food?

Let's visit this one shortly.  If you live in America as a member of
a community, do you owe the community anything for providing you with
a suitable environment in which to thrive?  In other words, children
from your society (community, culture, whatever) have a "right" to
"force you to pay" for their education, but the children from a different
society (community, culture, etc...) do not.  This 1/2 argument indicates
that the A/B choice above need not cover the entire range of choices.

Therefore, Michael's claim of not following how Somalia enters into a
discussion about American public schools indicates that he isn't following
your argument in this discussion.  Perhaps it should be clarified as to
what you are arguing for/against.

Mark Runyan
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5808 ca.politics:8378
From: mike@frey.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:11:26 GMT
Reply-To: mike@frey.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Organization: N.I.C.E.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.81

Phil Ronzone writes:
>In article <26583@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
>    >it. What do we do about children who can't afford "shoes", or
>    >whose parents irresponsibly smoke up the "shoe" money [&c]

>1. We say "too bad".

[Who the hell is this "we" who "say"s?]

Do you mean that it doesn't matter, the children of these
cases are just out of luck, they don't get an education?

>2. We accept that because some people may do something stupid, that
>   we DON'T coerce ALL people. Because SOME people use stupid

In the cases above, please show who is being "coerced".
Eg, in the case of irresponsible parents, aren't the children
being "coerced" out of an education?  If not, why not?
If so, what remedy do you propose for them?

What I see you doing here, is calling for the present education system
to be thrown out, because it disobeys some principle (nothing about
results, or lack of them, or anything of the kind).  The result is
that we will replace a system that educates SOME, but not ALL, poor
children properly, with a system that educates NONE of them.  Talk
about throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater!

>   drugs, shall we institute mandatory drug screening for ALL people?
>   After all, if you don't use drugs, WHAT are you worried about?

This is an irrelevant diversion.  Stick to the subject.

>3. Prior to forced education, even the poorest of settlers would
>   do what they could to provide education.

Do you think the education required to get by in pioneer society
in the 18th century is an appropriate basis for the curriculum
of 1992?  Are you aware of literacy rates in colonial times?
Seems to me we want to talk about what's needed now, yes?
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5662 talk.politics.misc:48006
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Homophobic Majority?
Date: 26 Sep 92 21:17:58 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <l00nr9-.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <96781@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>In article <b79nxnp.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
>>Ronzone) writes:

>>>People should not (via initiation) coerce others. Period.

>>Except, of course, as you say, when they want to fire a gay
>>employee, for something they have done with their own
>>property (their body), on their own time in the privacy of
>>their home.

>Uh, which of my two statements above do you disagree with?

I maintain that firing an employee based on his private conduct
on his own time is initiation of coercion.

>So when Acme Inc. sees a video tape of the entirely legal political
>meeting where John Doe calls for a NAZI state in America

If a person is dumb enough to tape parts of his private life, he had
better make sure that he keeps track of those tapes.

If someone absconds with them and attempts defamation, John Doe can claim
invasion of privacy.

>Think -- IT HAS TO BE MUTUAL. BOTH PARTIES MUST AGREE. 

Gee, I didn't know that anyone had to agree on private activities.

What about a compromise? The government gives tax incentives to those
corporations which sign non-discriminatory contracts with their
employees?

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cramer@optilink.uucp (Clayton Cramer): Message-ID: <12133@optilink.UUCP>
I realize it's difficult for a person as depraved as [Brian Kane].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5782 ca.politics:8350
From: mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Date: 2 Oct 1992 01:05:57 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Reply-To: mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.82
Summary: No shoes, no shirt, no service

Phil Ronzone writes:
>Schools are not that much different from buying shoes. A LOT of parents

Ok, accepting this metaphor for the sake of argument is a stretch,
but let's see what develops.

>are very unhappy about the school system, yet they are forced to
>"buy" the State designed and manufactured "shoes", which are poorly
>designed, dislike by most all, and in general quite shoddy compared to
>"shoes" elsewhere in the world.

Which "shoes" are, in many cases, also manufactured & designed
by other "States".  So what comes next just doesn't follow:

>Fixing the "shoe" problem is obvious. let the private marketplace do it.

Let's suppose, tho, that you could indeed show the private marketplace
can do a better job of making "shoes" than any "State" program could.
Naturally we would want to adopt this better program.  But this is
where I run into difficulty with it.  What do we do about children who
can't afford "shoes", or whose parents irresponsibly smoke up the
"shoe" money, or for religious or personal reasons won't pony up to
buy their children "shoes"?
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5811 ca.politics:8383 talk.politics.misc:49221
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Recruiting Devices? (was Mr. Cramer's strange views)
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:27:22 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

> In article <4330@wet.UUCP> mhi@wet.UUCP (Philip E. Murphy) writes:
#     #Lets make a rule - if you are going to cite "literary works"
#     #or "scholarly" works - give us the author and title.
#     #Otherwise its bull... I was born and raised in San Francisco.
#     #I myself am not gay, but I have known gays and lesbians for
#     #years. I have discussed at length with some of them
#     #concerning their "origins". Cramer and other "assumptionists"
#     #have not done their homework.
#     #
#     #I guess though if you go to the right bookstore, all the
#     #literature may be tainted. I would expect books there to have
#     #titles like
#     #
#     #"The Holocaust Myth" or "The Re-Integration of the Races"

I will citing the sources in a series of postings shortly.  This
Mother of Flame Wars will contain a variety of sources, all from
respected and scholarly publications found in the Sonoma State
University library.  They demonstrate conclusively that nearly
everything said by the homosexuals on the subject of child 
molestation and homosexuality is at least questionable, and in
many cases, utterly false.

That includes the role of child molestation in adult homosexuality
recruiting.
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5816 ca.politics:8387 talk.politics.misc:49259
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bad arguing; Recruiting Devices? (was Mr. Cramer's strange views)
Date: 3 Oct 92 05:11:45 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <12589@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>I will citing the sources in a series of postings shortly.  This
>Mother of Flame Wars will contain a variety of sources, all from
>respected and scholarly publications found in the Sonoma State
>University library.  They demonstrate conclusively that nearly
>everything said by the homosexuals on the subject of child 
>molestation and homosexuality is at least questionable, and in
>many cases, utterly false.
>

Unfortunately, the argument structure that you are proposing is
in the area of inductive reasoning.  It is therefore ampliative.
You conclusions will exceed the information contained in your
premises.  For starters one need only look at your statement above;
"They demosntrate conclusively that nearly everything said by the
homosexuals on the subject of child molestation ... is utterly 
false".  This only demostrates your mistake in the process of
inductive reasoning-  keep in the mind the your premises may be
true, but your conclusion can be wrong.

There are arguments available, even now on this newsgroup, or we
may wish to call them premises, that will undermined even your
best inductive argument.

Your arguments reflect the nature of induction- that is the degree
of strength in your argument vary from weak to strong, all based
on the premises.

Let's create an example;

All observed gay males have feminine demeanors.
All gays have feminine demeanors.

The argument is obviously ampliative;  there is discussion of only
observed gay males, but the attempt here is to classify all gay
males. It will not stand up to extensive testing.  It is not 
necessarily truth preserving.

>That includes the role of child molestation in adult homosexuality
>recruiting.
>-- 

This appears to be a second conclusion derived from your original
premises set.  I think this stretches the conditions a 'little'
to far.  In the future it is advisable to demostrate your that 
your conclusions are based upon deductive reasoning processes,
that is premises that will support your conclusion.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:11:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.013218.25077@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
    >If the public school system is inherently "unfixable", why
    >would a private school system not have the same problems?
    >(Because the "problem elements" would be eliminated.) I can
    >appreciate that parents want their child to have the best
    >education, and I can see benefits for private schools, but
    >abandoning or leaving the system in a shell is not so good.

Schools are not that much different from buying shoes. A LOT of parents
are very unhappy about the school system, yet they are forced to
"buy" the State designed and manufactured "shoes", which are poorly
designed, dislike by most all, and in general quite shoddy compared to
"shoes" elsewhere in the world.

Fixing the "shoe" problem is obvious. let the private marketplace do it.

    >>Considering that the bulk of our population in this country,
    >>for the first 100 years did NOT have a public tax supported
    >>school system, and that we did very well, I don't think it
    >>would be a great disaster if we went to a private system.
    >>
    >Hmmm. Did you really mean this? (did slave do very well or
    >just the rich white men that exploited them and paid taxes?)

Oops, a class-ist term! (Rich White Men). Actually, as any student
who has studied history knows, the first 100 years of this country
definitely did not favor rich white men -- it favored a lot of very
poor people, some of which became rich.

And yes, slavery. Of course, the problem could not haved existed at all
without the coercive State I'm arguing against in this very post. You
seem to support the very institution that, throughout history, has
made slavery possible -- the State.

    >>Indeed, some people would say a "decline" in our society can
    >>be correlated to the increase in public schools for the last
    >>100 years ... :-)
    >>
    >How has society declined in the last 100 years? Technological
    >advances only are amazing: the automobile, phone, flight,
    >computer, space exploration, etc etc. Plus the majority of
    >the population has much greater rights: women, blacks,
    >children (no child labor) etc etc. Please explain what you
    >mean.

    Look at the :-).


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5891 ca.politics:8474 talk.politics.misc:49732