HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Landmark Federal Reserve Bank study accepted by banks
Date: 10 Oct 92 12:51:27 GMT
Followup-To: alt.discrimination
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

info taken from the Boston Globe Friday October 9 1992:

"Study shows racial bias in lending"

A landmark study released Thursday shows that banks in Greater Boston
discriminate against Black and Hispanic mortage applicants, offering
the most damning evidence to date of racial hurdles facing minority
homebuyers.

The study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Bostn concluded that
minorities are roughly 60% more likely to be denied a mortage than
whites even when they are equally creditworthy.

Bankers have criticizes similar reports in the past for not taking
into account important financial factors in lending decisions, but
industry leaders accepted the new study.

The new report, the first of its kind in the nation considers 39
criteria that go into mortage decisions, such as credit and employment
history, total debt and net worth.  Bankers said that the absence of
those factors from earlier reports made conclusions suspect.

Although the study focused on Greater Boston, the authors said they had
no reason to beleive the findings would be different elsewhere in the
country. 

Researchers found that *80%* of all applicants, regardless of race,
have some flaw that could disqualify them.  That means it is in the
hands of individual bankers to decide whether the bulk of would-be
homebuyers receive loans.

"Given the same imperfections, whites seem to enjoy a general
assumption of creditworthiness that Black and Hispanic applicants do
not" said Alicia Munnell who presented the report along with the
president of the Boston Fed, Richard Syron.
-----

Well.

--
Peace.
         "Sex between a man and a woman can be wonderful,
          provided you get between the right man and the right woman"
	                           --Woody Allen
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
From: fs_fuchs@rcsw66.rcvie.at (Kurt Fuchs)
Subject: Re: What morality?
Organization: Alcatel-ELIN RC, Vienna, Austria
	<FS_FUCHS.92Oct12123007@rcsw66.rcvie.at>
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 11:46:50 GMT


In article <FS_FUCHS.92Oct12123007@rcsw66.rcvie.at> fs_fuchs@rcsw66.rcvie.at (Kurt Fuchs) writes:

[...]

> The very person, which does "not have a problem with illegal
> immigrants being shot by officials", has problems, when these people
> don't try to leave the mess in their countries but try to escape
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> somewhere else.  
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Skip that!
From: sidnag@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (siddhartha.nag)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What morality?
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:56:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1992Oct09.154225.7627@microsoft.com> johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:
>In article sidnag@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (siddhartha.nag) writes:
>| What 'morality' are you talking of here ? 
>
>The one which objects to burning the widow or burning a new wife
>whose family hasn't come up with enough bridal gifts.
>The one which doesn't approve of killing untouchables for drinking
>from the common well, or wearing shoes.
>The one that doesn't approve of inherited debts [slavery], or
>watching the children starve while the rats and cattle live.
>The one that doesn't approve of war/terrorism over religious
>differences.

Which is not any worse than teenage pregnancies, drugs in classrooms, and
promiscuous aids-laced sex.
Which is not any worse than the white man treating the black man as
his beast of burden.
Which is not any worse than so-called marriages that lead to divorces
more than half of the time.
Which is not any worse than the one that approves of playing the big-bully
in the world and killing thousands for the sake of oil.
Which is not any worse than a society that is so easily 'programmed' by
everything they watch on television.
>
>
>-- 
>-------------------------
>My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
>views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
>
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: I.N.S.
Date: 09 Oct 92 15:33:34 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article sidnag@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (siddhartha.nag) writes:
| In article johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:
| >Laws enacted by the legal representatives of the people.
|                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| Representatives - Hah ! You mean special interest groups. 

Which are of course people, and perferrable to your apparent
alternative, placing you in charge.

| I suggest you try your 'convincing' arguments on someone else.

It does help if the audience has some facility with logic and
knowledge of the subject at hand.  I appologize for using my
'powerful one-liners' [your phrase] on the unarmed.

-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.

Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
From: fs_fuchs@rcsw66.rcvie.at (Kurt Fuchs)
Subject: Re: I.N.S.
Organization: Alcatel-ELIN RC, Vienna, Austria
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:43:38 GMT


In article <1992Oct06.234131.15463@microsoft.com> johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:

> In article fs_fuchs@rcsw66.rcvie.at (Kurt Fuchs) writes:
> | So many jews and other Nazi-persued tried to enter illegally Swiss in
> | WWII since Swiss didn't allow them to do so. 
> 
> The problem here wasn't the Swiss, but the Nazi's.   

 & people like you.
> 
> | Our friend has also no problems problems shooting people, which
> | try to escape economic collapse and hunger from countries, which still
> | suffer from being oeconomic colonies of the first wirld.
> 
> The last phrase contains an assumption which is at odds with reality.
> Economic collapse in these countries has been brought upon themselves.

Dream, dream, dream, dreeeeam ....

> | I, for instance, don't have problems with assholes committing suicide
> | right now! 
> 
> This means you won't be bothering us anymore, correct?
> Hasta la vista.

If you're committing suicide, I won't bother you anymore. Try it, it
may help you (and us).
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: What morality?
Date: 17 Oct 92 00:13:07 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article fs_fuchs@rcsw66.rcvie.at (Kurt Fuchs) writes:
| Here you forgot something: 
| 
| You SUPPORT also the right of people, which live in the whealty houses

Wealth is immaterial to the situation.

| (with goods probably stolen from other houses), 

No, and considering foreign aid the opposite is often true.

| And finally some simple, but hard to answer question:
| 
| When you support the right to leave a country, but deny the right to
| enter ANY country, where should these people go?

To a country which wants them.
If none want them, C'est la vive.

The US, having a particularly desireable country to live in,
should charge all the traffic is willing to bear -- and let
those in who will help further enrich our country.


-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.

Xref: sparky alt.discrimination:4530 comp.edu:1798 sci.edu:1074
From: NEDavis@cen.ex.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,comp.edu,sci.edu
Subject: Re: I.T. aspects of religion and gender in teaching
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:02:29 GMT
Organization: University of Exeter, UK.

Andrew,
We currently have a PGCE course in RE in which we introduce the
students to IT and the use of IT in teaching RE. We are trying
to develop it in conjunction with the schools in which they
will be placed, so it is still 'in development'

This year two items planned are use of the bible on CD ROM and
use of Touch Explorer with a concept keyboard on a BBC. We can
let you know how we progress!

Please can you share the information you gather with us. We
will also need to develop the use of a Nimbus network and will
probably use Microsoft Works.

Niki Davis and Penni Tearle
From: sidnag@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (Syd Nag)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What morality?
Date: 11 Oct 92 15:16:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

This is going to be my last exchange, in this moronic debate with Mr. Hall
who successfully diverted the initial topic of discussion - INS.

In article <1992Oct10.225033.14064@microsoft.com> johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:
>In article sidnag@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (siddhartha.nag) writes:
>
>| Which is not any worse than the white man treating the black man as
>| his beast of burden.
>
>Wrong century.  Or were you comparing paying wages to lynching
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^    ^^^^^^^^
>someone for getting a drink of water?
>
Paying wages ? I didn't know indebtured slaves got any wages ! Are you
trying to make a case for the white man ? Mr. Hall you are pathetic ;-)

Lynching - You mean like the kind blacks and minorities are subjected to
even today by certain white-supremacist groups like KKK - whose beliefs
you probably sympathise with !

>
>| Which is not any worse than the one that approves of playing the big-bully
>| in the world and killing thousands for the sake of oil.
>
>If you are talking about Desert Storm, I have a few thousand
>grateful Kuwaitis who you can talk to.  I also assume you approve
>of Saddam's rape/pillage for oil.

I have a few million Iraqis *you* can talk to. .....And I am sure (don't
assume ;-) ) that you approve of George's annihilation for oil. OOps I'm
sorry - it wasn't for oil. It was for the liberation and sovereignty of
Kuwait ;-)
Come .. Come..Charlie, grow up :-) (sorry for using a one-liner on you. I take
it you are armed ;-) ).
From: sidnag@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (siddhartha.nag)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: I.N.S.
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:43:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1992Oct09.153334.7391@microsoft.com> johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:
>In article sidnag@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (siddhartha.nag) writes:
>| In article johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:
>| >Laws enacted by the legal representatives of the people.
>|                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>| Representatives - Hah ! You mean special interest groups. 
>
>Which are of course people, and perferrable to your apparent
>alternative, placing you in charge.

Which is of course orders of magnitudes better than placing xenophobic
people like you in charge.

>
>| I suggest you try your 'convincing' arguments on someone else.
>
>It does help if the audience has some facility with logic and
                                                     ^^^^^
An attribute you could do with in large proportions.

>knowledge of the subject at hand.  I appologize for using my
>'powerful one-liners' [your phrase] on the unarmed.
>
>-- 
>-------------------------
>My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
>views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
>
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: I.N.S.
Date: 08 Oct 92 18:36:29 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article sidnag@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (siddhartha.nag) writes:
| Legality or Illegality is determined by adherence or violation of
| policies. 

Laws enacted by the legal representatives of the people.

| If you read my last post carefully, you would have realised,
| that I was questioning the xenophobic policies in the first place.

As is your right.

| Especially when there are 2 sets of policies, one which applies to
| one immigrant community and the second set to the other. That I 
| believe is not only xenophobic, but discriminatory as well and needless to say  constitutionally illegal !

The morality of Xenophobia and discrimination are situationally 
dependent.  What you are talking about is not constitutionally illegal.


-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.

Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
From: fs_fuchs@rcsw66.rcvie.at (Kurt Fuchs)
Subject: Re: What morality?
Organization: Alcatel-ELIN RC, Vienna, Austria
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 10:29:41 GMT


In article <1992Oct14.023229.12863@microsoft.com> johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:

> | 
> | "A morality, which objects to burning widow or ..." 
> | 
> | Who would object that? 
> 
> The practice of burning the widow in India (these all refered to
> practices of india, just to pull sid's chain) was outlawed by
> the British and remains illegal -- though I think it still occurs
> on rare occasions.  Burning new wives occurs 1,000's of times
> a year in present day India.  IMHO, Hardly in a league with simple
> stupidity [teenage preganancy, drug use, etc.] as sid implied.

Sid won't find it good to burn wifes, but he ALSO don't like some
other things. 

[...]

> I support the right to leave a house where you are being abused.
> I do not grant a right to force entry into someone else's house,
> including the case where you left because you were being abused.

Here you forgot something: 

You SUPPORT also the right of people, which live in the whealty houses
(with goods probably stolen from other houses), >> TO KILL << those
people, which find some hidden but open door into this wealthy house
(having escaped from a house, where they have been abused), where they
and others would find a place for living. 

Illegal immegrants do not enter countries in an invasion like style,
or would you call the US trops "illegal immegrants" with what they did
in Grenada, Panama, etc.

And finally some simple, but hard to answer question:

When you support the right to leave a country, but deny the right to
enter ANY country, where should these people go?
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: What morality?
Date: 10 Oct 92 22:50:33 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article sidnag@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (siddhartha.nag) writes:
| Which is not any worse than teenage pregnancies, drugs in classrooms, and
| promiscuous aids-laced sex.

I see.  Teenage pregnancy no worse than burning a new wife?

| Which is not any worse than the white man treating the black man as
| his beast of burden.

Wrong century.  Or were you comparing paying wages to lynching
someone for getting a drink of water?

| Which is not any worse than so-called marriages that lead to divorces
| more than half of the time.

There is nothing inherently great about being miserable the rest
of your life.

| Which is not any worse than the one that approves of playing the big-bully
| in the world and killing thousands for the sake of oil.

If you are talking about Desert Storm, I have a few thousand
grateful Kuwaitis who you can talk to.  I also assume you approve
of Saddam's rape/pillage for oil.

| Which is not any worse than a society that is so easily 'programmed' by
| everything they watch on television.

I rarely watch.

-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
From: sidnag@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (siddhartha.nag)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: I.N.S.
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:44:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1992Oct04.215516.29361@microsoft.com> johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:
>In article sidnag@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (siddhartha.nag) writes:
>| Has it ever occurred to you though Mr. Borders, that the 
>| policies in themselves may be xenophobic in nature ? 
>
>If the US wishes to be xenophobic and let in no immigrants, that
>is entirely the perogative of the US goverment.

Well then they should not get on their goddamn soapbox in front of the 
world audience and proclaim how tolerant they are and how other world
governments are soooo.. intolerant. That I believe, is the epitome of
hypocrisy.

>
>You may not assume that I agree with such policies -- I don't.
>The attitudes of the US with regards to asians is particularly
>discraceful.  Yet that discrace is limited to the treatment
>of legally immigrated peoples (like not granting them citizenship).
    ^^^^^^^

Legality or Illegality is determined by adherence or violation of
policies. If you read my last post carefully, you would have realised,
that I was questioning the xenophobic policies in the first place.
Especially when there are 2 sets of policies, one which applies to
one immigrant community and the second set to the other. That I 
believe is not only xenophobic, but discriminatory as well and needless to say  constitutionally illegal !

Sid
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
From: sidnag@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (siddhartha.nag)
Subject: Re: I.N.S.
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:01:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct08.183629.4150@microsoft.com> johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:
>In article sidnag@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (siddhartha.nag) writes:
>| Legality or Illegality is determined by adherence or violation of
>| policies. 
>
>Laws enacted by the legal representatives of the people.
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Representatives - Hah ! You mean special interest groups. Right !
Don't display your gross naivety Mr. Hall. Or at least don't try
to convince me with your 'powerful' one-liners.
I suggest you try your 'convincing' arguments on someone else.

>
>| If you read my last post carefully, you would have realised,
>| that I was questioning the xenophobic policies in the first place.
>
>As is your right.

You bet it is my bloody right !
>
>| Especially when there are 2 sets of policies, one which applies to
>| one immigrant community and the second set to the other. That I 
>| believe is not only xenophobic, but discriminatory as well and needless to say  constitutionally illegal !
>
>The morality of Xenophobia and discrimination are situationally 
>dependent.  What you are talking about is not constitutionally illegal.
>
What 'morality' are you talking of here ? You are beginning to sound like
Pat Robertson ;). I think you have successfully digressed from the point
in my initial post, so there is no sense in carrying on this tete-a-tete
with you.       
Oh ! BTW I see great potential in you as an INS officer. Perhaps you
ought to consider ; ) 

>My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^              ^^^^^^
>views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
 ^^^^^^                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you sure ; )


Sid
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
From: fs_fuchs@rcsw66.rcvie.at (Kurt Fuchs)
Subject: Re: What morality?
Organization: Alcatel-ELIN RC, Vienna, Austria
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 11:30:07 GMT


In article <1992Oct09.154225.7627@microsoft.com> johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:

> In article sidnag@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (siddhartha.nag) writes:
> | What 'morality' are you talking of here ? 
> 
> The one which objects to burning the widow or burning a new wife
> whose family hasn't come up with enough bridal gifts.
> The one which doesn't approve of killing untouchables for drinking
> from the common well, or wearing shoes.
> The one that doesn't approve of inherited debts [slavery], or
> watching the children starve while the rats and cattle live.
> The one that doesn't approve of war/terrorism over religious
> differences.

You havn't gone quite far until now. 

"A morality, which objects to burning widow or ..." 

Who would object that? But then comes the interesting part:

"... or watching the children starve while the rats and cattle live."

The very person, which does "not have a problem with illegal
immigrants being shot by officials", has problems, when these people
don't try to leave the mess in their countries but try to escape
somewhere else.  

So what morality you are talking about here, except about the one
which fits you? 
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: What morality?
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:32:29 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article fs_fuchs@rcsw66.rcvie.at (Kurt Fuchs) writes:
| In article johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:
| > The one which objects to burning the widow or burning a new wife
| > whose family hasn't come up with enough bridal gifts.

| You havn't gone quite far until now. 

Actually, I expected to be lambasted about Black's being
the White men's beast of burden.  On further reflection I
do not wish to defend 92 years of American history.
I'll defend 25, won't argue about another 25, and concede
the other 42.

| 
| "A morality, which objects to burning widow or ..." 
| 
| Who would object that? 

The practice of burning the widow in India (these all refered to
practices of india, just to pull sid's chain) was outlawed by
the British and remains illegal -- though I think it still occurs
on rare occasions.  Burning new wives occurs 1,000's of times
a year in present day India.  IMHO, Hardly in a league with simple
stupidity [teenage preganancy, drug use, etc.] as sid implied.

What is really interesting is that, were I to devise immigration
policies, I would expect an increased percentage from India.
Sid mistook a defense of the right to be rude with advocacy
of the rude -- a frequent mistake of the passionately PC. 


| But then comes the interesting part:
| 
| "... or watching the children starve while the rats and cattle live."
| 
| The very person, which does "not have a problem with illegal
| immigrants being shot by officials", has problems, when these people
| don't try to leave the mess in their countries but try to escape
| somewhere else.  

You responded to your response so I am not sure where you are
here.

I support the right to leave a house where you are being abused.
I do not grant a right to force entry into someone else's house,
including the case where you left because you were being abused.


-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.

Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: What morality?
Date: 09 Oct 92 15:42:25 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article sidnag@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (siddhartha.nag) writes:
| What 'morality' are you talking of here ? 

The one which objects to burning the widow or burning a new wife
whose family hasn't come up with enough bridal gifts.
The one which doesn't approve of killing untouchables for drinking
from the common well, or wearing shoes.
The one that doesn't approve of inherited debts [slavery], or
watching the children starve while the rats and cattle live.
The one that doesn't approve of war/terrorism over religious
differences.


-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.

Newsgroups: alt.comics.lnh,rec.arts.comics.misc