HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:25:29 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <13713@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.011656.8158@netcom.com>, madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
># Typical.  Cramer refuses to acknowledge any information that
># disagrees with his ridiculous theories, and Ronzone, as usual,
># completely changes the subject.
># -- 
># Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
>
>I didn't ignore, I was on vacation.
>
>Why are homosexuals such lying stupid scum?

They're not, Clayton.  You, however, are.

Happy Holidays

George Lambert
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: dangerous group (was: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ)
Keywords: Cable, Viacom, Gouge, rip-off, ouch!!!
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:11:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.233414.6981@smsc.sony.com> markc@smsc.sony.com (Mark Corscadden) writes:
>I'm new to the ba news hierarchy (though I've lived in the Bay Area for
>fourteen years) so I was looking around for a group in which to discuss
>the evil ways of our local cable company.  

Oh, you have an evil cable company in San Jose too ?  I just got my
bill last night.  Viacom here in Marin was delighted to inform me
that our bill just went up to $25.00 a month for basic service.
In four years my cable bill has gone up 47%.  In that same time
period, the general rate of inflation has gone up maybe 15%.  So
they are going at 3 times the inflation rate.  Who do they think
they are - a hospital ?  As soon as the niners win the Super-Bowl,
I may just cancel my cable.  Any other ideas on what we can do to
bite these guys back ?

Guido


Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:47:12 GMT

Tell me, Phil, are you capable of holding a discussion without
dragging your "Politically Correct" tirade into it?  You're 
as one-tracked as Clayton is.

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7922 ca.politics:10495
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: GAYS IN THE MILITARY
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:24:57 GMT
Organization: QueerNet

In article <3861.58.uupcb@uttsbbs.uucp> neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) writes:
OK, I'll bite.  What does this have to do with BAY AREA politics?  Please
move it to talk.politics.misc, or alt.politics.homosexuality...
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG              {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!sgiblab!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Politically Correct jokes
Date: 29 Dec 92 11:30:07 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

Ahhhh, I LOVE the smell of napalm in the morning ...

Sing Loh Victor Charlie ..

A certain net dweeb has been enquiring lately as to my rationale for
asserting that I have detected a whiff of Politically Correct(tm)
humor in r.h.f., which, I must hasten to add, I have never detected before
when Brad Templeton was doing the selection.

But times, they do change!

An example of a joke from r.h.f. with a Politically Correct Flavor:

  "Has anyone else noticed that an administration famous for trying
   to make minced meat of our rights recently appointed to Secretary of
   State a man named Eagleburger."

Now first, this is not a funny joke. The first part is a PC(tm) slur and
has nothing to do with the second part. I mean, if James Watt had been named
Eagleburger, there would have been jokes galore. But, Eagleburger, with
a connection to ecology and endangered species, has nothing to do with rights.

Our constitutional rights have nothing to do with endangered species, NOR
anything to do with the office of the Secretary of State.

So this is your classic PC(tm) joke -- the first part is the obligatory slur
and innuendo, and the second part is totally irrelevant to the second part.
One PC(tm) slur, one meaningless joke.

Now, I remember when some eco-freak opposing a dam had the last name of Flood,
NOW that was relevant and funny (or could have been).

Anyway, the above quoted joke was one of a batch of 22 (the last I read).
There was another one, but it seems to have expired on me already. Two
out of 22 is around 10% -- perhaps a fluke, perhaps not, given as I have
never scented PC-isms before on r.h.f.

And of all people, I'd sense it, eh?

You may now resume frothing Maddi (rabie shots are on the way ...) ...



-- 
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: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 07:36:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.005231.9272@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
    >No wonder everyone here keeps telling you what a fool you
    >are.

This is the second statement of this type you've made. The first was along the
lines of "everybody has you in their kill files".

I've found that people that have the security of their convictions do not
need to mention how many other people feel the same way.

Truth is not arrived at by a democratic (or mob) vote.

    >No, you're the dense one. You think I'm going to fall for
    >your uglt little bully games, but I won't. Quit the rudeness
    >and answer the question: What does Michels stepping down have
    >to do with FOA. You have NOT answered it, even if you claim
    >you did. What you have answered is that he stepped down due
    >to monetary loss, and scandal.

O.K., what part have you missed?

Did he step down because the police came and took him away?

No.

Did he step down because there were corporate bylaws that said he couldn't
be an SCO executive if he went around kissing people?

No.

Did he step down because a lot of people did not want to be ASSOCIATED
with a guy like this? And that because a lot of people did not want to
be ASSOCIATED with him, he (and others that he needs for his own stock to
remain valuable) was going to get hurt in the pocketbook?

Yes.

Now, what part of the concept of association do you not understand?

To be blunt -- you are an utter asshole. As you admit, he stepped down because
of scandal -- and money loss (potentially) derived from that scandal.

And what do you think that scandal is all about? Scandal is the recognition
of other people of behaviour that is highly improper (and often but not
always illegal). In short, people saying they don't like that kind of behaviour
and will not put up with it.

-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: David;'s challenge
Date: 24 Dec 92 02:26:13 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <1992Dec24.000501.28834@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <ljhfcmINN5bv@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
>    >Phil, it's clear that you can look things up and cite them.
>    >What is not clear is whether you can assemble or understand
>    >the facts that you find. You've certainly demonstrated that
>    >you don't understand statistics, for example. Sure, you can
>    >look up two or three statistical facts, but then you assemble
>    >them in nonsensical ways.

>O.K. David, this should be real easy for you then.

Actually, not.  I'd have to slog through dozens of posts that I really
have little interest in reading, and I'm not surprised that you are
occasionally right.  That still leaves plenty of room for "usually
wrong".  I pretty much quit reading your posts after the
homosexual/child molestors fiasco -- it was clear that you can look
things up, but statistically you were either stupid or malicious.  By
default, I assume (statistically) "stupid" (but so are most of the
people working for NewsWeek or USA Today).

What I've seen of your posts recently (mistaking Republicans for
Democrats, then trying to redefine the terms to cover the error) leads
me to believe that I don't really need to read your stuff much more
closely.  A few months of sustained perfection would do a lot to
restore your credibility, but I'm not holding my breath.  What is
damned peculiar is how easily you can get derailed off of some subject
(e.g., health insurance) and turn into some anti-PC rant, complete
with drug-abusing cannibalistic lesbian Nazi thought police.

>Now, I haven't seen ANYBODY (hint hint) fess up to their errors.

Then you haven't been reading very closely.  The one non-dyslexic
mistake that I made, I pointed out.  It even concerned a quote from
one of YOUR posts.  You should be thrilled.

David Chase
Sun
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7865 ca.politics:10474
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Why Do We Have Separate Restrooms? (WAS Re: Gays, the military...)
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:30:03 GMT

In article <105743@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >No one can be made responsible for another's subjective
    >feelings.
    >
    >There are people on the street that I find irresistible, even
    >with their clothes on----in fact, it is a commonly held
    >opinion that scant clothing is more seductive than complete
    >nudity----but I am completely groundless in demanding a
    >hotty/hunk-free sidewalk.
    >...
    >>Men are not used to be sexually agressed against. In the
    >>military now, homosexuality has to be hidden. If it were
    >>open, it would remove one check against sexual agression
    >>against men. I.e., a homosexual NCO could not make the
    >>slightest move against a private because his homosexuality
    >>has to be hidden.
    >>
    >This is the crux. Men don't like being put in a woman's
    >"traditional place". It makes them embarrassed about their
    >own (potential) behavior.
    >
    >>In short, given seperate facilities as in men's and women's,
    >>I can't see any other rational reason to ban homosexuals.
    >>
    >Look, men are used to seeing other men's naked bodies. Gay
    >men can't be held responsible for creating a climate of fear.
    >They CAN be held responsible for their sexual conduct, but no
    >another person's thoughts.

O.K. then, do you, or do you not, think that seperate facilities for
women and men (communal sleeping showering, shitting) is justified?
If it IS justified, then why?

Why can women have seperate facilities from <people sexually attracted to them>
but men can not?

Or how about, just for you :-), all your changing rooms in clothing stores
are glass enclosed? If it would bother you, 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: David;'s challenge
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:21:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.022209.29216@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
    >Phil, I'm STILL waiting for you to support your claim that
    >r.h.f. became PC after I started moderating it. This is the
    >sixth request. Going to keep ignoring it?


Hmm, I have asked you to send me the jokes posted since you took over.

Out of the last 22 postings, 2 were both PC and not very funny, definitely
not BT style at all. The Eagleburger one was the worst, given the assumptive
PC opening line. It's kinda like "Raygun" statements. Anyway, than about
10%. Worse yet, BT kept just about all the jokes posted in the state of
"being funny" -- I generally chcukled at just about anything he posted.
The chuckle quotient has been dropping since you took over.


BTW - why haven't you admitted you were wrong on Michels yet? He STILL isn't
charged with anything. Hell, to my knowledge, there isn't even any attempt
on anyone's part to bring anything before a grand jury. Of course, Maddi,
I guess you just want to have the hanging now and the trial later. Anything
other than to admit you were wrong.



-- 
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 (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:26:02 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Dec22.195947.18565@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <92357.38599.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>    >One of the primary arguments used by the "anti-gay" forces
>    >(for lack of a better term) is that heterosexuals will feel
>    >uncomfortable around someone who is openly gay.
>
>1. Well, since it much more cost effective to not have seperate facilities,
>   then of course we shall remove the seperate arrangements for men and
>   women in the military.
>
>   Of course, many if not all women will now feel uncomfortable in showering
>   with the men and bunking with the men, but, hey, where's comfort mentioned
>   in the constitution?
>

Well if you want to extend the fallacy of this type of argument.  There 
are probably enlisted people who do not like being around blacks, or jews,
maybe asians; so we should or should not maintain seperate facilities for
all of these situations?  

So what do we do.  There are already gay men and women in the military. I
know some, so that the situation already exist.  They don't live in seperate
quarters, or eat at different mess halls.

IMHO, there is another condition, that some military personnel may feel
uncomfortable with, and that is not wanting it to be known, that they are
gay or bisexual.  I have spoken with enlisted gay men who say that it
is taboo to let anyone know who is gay in the officer's ranks. It is 
interesting, but common, that gay/bi men in the military may want it kept
secret, becuase they have not reached a point of comfort with themselves.

Bottom line is- don't force someone out of the military, because they
are found out to be gay.  If there has been a violation involving someone
on sexual grounds, whether gay,bi or straight, then that should be the
basis of explusion.

CONDUCT is the issue, not COMFORTABLE or UNCOMFORTABLE. The military as
far as I know, is not a place to go to be 'comfortable'.  There is nothing
comforting in the fact that you may be, at anytime, sent out to battle
and die.


>2. Anto-gay is a very loaded term. You seem to assume that if people don't
>   agree with a position held by some homosexuals, that they are anti-
>   homosexual.
>
>   Not a valid position at all.
>

Well again, I would say the original poster made it clear about what he
means-  'anti-gay' forces... I do not think he is talking about people
who have questions about it, or reservations.

It is quite reasonable to assume that someone who questions the situation
is not necessarily gay. 

You have made an extrapolation, and not a very good one.  The poster quoted
and stated anti-gay forces.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 08:34:15 GMT

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >

>Ugh. I know the Michels. My personal, own and private opinion, based on
>experiences I have seen and documented (there, that'll keep the libel
>lawyers at bay I hope) is that they are lying scum. Perosnal direct
>experience.
>
>But the point I want to make is the workings of freedom (and capitalism) in
>this case.
>
>No charges have been filed, yet Michels has stepped down. As SCO wishes to
>go public, it is not good for an IPO to have such shit going on. He was
>most likely forced out.

Wrong again.  Charges have been filed with the State EEO office by two
of the five.  Civil lawsuits have also been filed.  So what are you
talking about?

>his victims was a lawyer -- who said something about putting up with the shit
>because she needed the job.
>
>What kind of an explanation is that? And what does it make that lawyer?
>

It's called reality.  Said woman (don't know if she was a lawyer or a
secretary, since the articles I read only mentioned secretaries) needed
her job, just like she said.  

She probably had bills to pay and couldn't afford to fight this and 
risk being blackballed from the industry.  If you had to feed your
family and had a huge mortgage and couldn't afford to miss one
paycheck (a very typical situation in Silicon Valley with our
$300,000 homes), would you call on your manager if he played fast
and loose with his ethics?  Remember, if you blow the whistle, you'll
probably lose your job, and a lawsuit will drag on for years.
Meanwhile, who is going to feed your children when your paycheck
goes away.  Answer: that's probably why she put up with it.

It happens, it's real, and what kind of person are you to blame 
the victim for this?  I'd say at least half the women I've talked 
to have been sexually harassed in one form or another.  One 
co-worker today told us that she was fired for not sleeping with 
her boss.  She was 19.  (this was 25 years ago)
It's always happened; what's changed is finally the bastards who do
this are getting punished.


-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:06:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.210551.8674@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
    >>>But the point I want to make is the workings of freedom (and
    >>>capitalism) in
    >>>>No charges have been filed, yet Michels has stepped down. As
    >>>>SCO wishes to go public, it is not good for an IPO to have
    >>>>such shit going on. He was most likely forced out.
    >>>>
    >>>Wrong again. Charges have been filed with the State EEO
    >>>office by two of the five. Civil lawsuits have also been
    >>>filed. So what are you talking about?
    >>>
    >>As I said, no charges have been filed. A complaint is not a
    >>charge, nor is a lawsuit. When the District Attorney and a
    >>Grand Jury indict Michels for rape, now THAT's a charge. As
    >>in "an indictment charging ...".
    >>
    >>Now, care to publicly admit you're wrong?
    >>
    >Since such incidents are RARELY charged as criminal behavior,
    >it is misleading of you to imply that since no CRIMINAL
    >charges have been filed, that therefore nothing is going on.
    >A CIVIL lawsuit is still damaging to the company, which is
    >why Michels stepped down. Michels is not accused of rape, yet
    >you imply a lack of a rape charge as proof that there is no
    >proof of wrongdoing. Very misleading, Phil. The question you........

Sigh - very very intellectually dishonest. Why don't you just admit that
you were wrong?

Michels stepped down NOT because of lawsuits (any company that size has
lawsuits against it on an ongoing basis) nor because of EEO complaints
(again, any company that size will have continual EEO complaints), but
because of FOA.

It has been undountedly pointed out that a LOT of people that are working
on taking SCO public stand to lose a good chunk of money if the IPO
is damaged -- and it will be damaged by any hint of unresolved scandal.

Given that the two Michels have 35% of SCO, and assuming that an
unresolved scandal could lower the IPO price by say, 10%, that would
cost the Michels tens of millions of dollars.

Tens of millions of dollars is enough to make ME step down.


Oh, and by the way -- I did not imply "a lack of a rape charge as proof that
there is no proof of wrongdoing."


Again, you were wrong and seem unable to admit it.

Do you realize the WORLD of difference between charges and lawsuits and EEO
complaints?

How would YOU like someone to erroneously say that you were charged with
various felonies? I don't think you'd like it one bit. Get your act
together and get your facts straight.




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: manley@optilink.COM (Terry Manley)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: On the usefulness of ba.politics
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:05:00 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

In article <1992Dec30.080959.12043@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>Either you believe:
>   Any adult can with his/her property what he/she damn well pleases, provided
>   there is no initian of coercion,

>Or you don't.

What do think of laws that restrict the development of wetlands (on
private property)?  For example many farmers are not allowed to
drain/plow some part of crop lands they own.  The argument being the
wetlands are required to support migrating birds (among other things).
If it can be shown that by developing the wetland, the farmer will
cause adverse effects on bird populations, thereby denying hunters
game, is the farmer initiating coercion against the hunters?  I assume
you think the farmer should compensated for not being able to use his
property - what should happen if the farmer then refuses compensation
and develops the wetland?  What happens if all the farmers in the 
central valley do so?

A related question: should a person be allowed to hunt anytime
on their own property?  Should the state in any way regulate
hunting?

--
dave
manley@optilink.com

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: GAYS IN THE MILITARY
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:45:37 GMT

In article <3846.58.uupcb@uttsbbs.uucp> neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)  writes:
    >One of the frequently used arguments against homosexuals in
    >the military is that "those people will try to have sex with
    >others." Well, you rarely (if ever) hear of homosexuals doing
    >such acts. And there are thousands upon thousands of
    >homosexuals in the military now (and there always has been).

Really? I haven't heard ANY of the military arguments use this. The consistent
rationale has been that it would be bad for morale. I don't think the
miltary has ever claimed that two homosexuals having sex is a detriment.

If Private John Doe has sex with Mary Smith off the base that afternoon,
there is no problem. John Doe showering with female soldiers will cause
a morale problem with those female soldiers.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics