HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 10 Oct 92 03:30:43 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <1992Oct9.231613.29232@pb2esac.uucp> jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:
>Michael, Michael... haven't you been paying attention here?  What should
>be taught as "truth" in the schools is merely what the kid's parents
>believe!
>
>;-)

Oh, yeah. Pardon the slip, and thank you for reminding me that
truth is a relative concept. I guess I was brainwashed by the
heathen teaching in my schools....:-)

-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8634 ba.politics:6049
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:52:56 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Oct11.231240.20626@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
    >Um Phil, what do people's attitudes toward homosexuality have
    >to do with *anything*. People's bigotry is not a validation
    >of anything. I have little doubt if we interchanged the word
    >"Italian" for "homosexual" you'd be the first to howl in
    >protest that this is no voting matter.


Interesting. If peoples *attitude* is something along the lines that *you*
don't like, it's "bigotry".

Now THAT attitude is true bigotry.

How long have you held this arrogant world viewpoint?

A large number of people find homosexuality disgusting, disagreeable,
or abhorent. There is no right or wrong on that, and is has little to
do with bigotry.

Secondly, to correct your narrow mindedness, it wouldn't bother me one bit
if Italian was substituted homosexual.

Your basic trouble, it seems from reading your posts, is that being dislike
for an attribute worries you a great deal.

You;d be a lot more happy if you didn't let YOUR happiness depend on the
opinions of others. Then maybe you'd stop trying to use force to "make"
people like you (or your cause).

    >Stop trying to co-opt the rest of the heterosexuals of the
    >world into your bigotry. That Phil Ronzone is a bigot does
    >not imply that the world is or should be bigoted. --

First of all -- I'm not a bigot. Stop equating any aspect of dislike with
bigotry. Secondly, I have every right to co-oipt anybody into anything
(that is moral).



If you are doing something that a large number of people find disgusting,
then either stop it, or live with it.






-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: NOT (Re: School vouchers)
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:08:57 GMT

In article <Bw4o9n.23H@cup.hp.com> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
    >Given that there are several members of {G} (g_x where 2<x<Y,
    >where Y is a large number), and given that A and B may leave
    >group {G} at any time, if all of {G} except B agrees that B
    >should take some action and will force B to take the action
    >as long as B remains a member of group {G}, are all the
    >members of group {G} acting immorally?

If I parsed this right, the answer is yes.

A member of a lynch mob does not have to tie the actual hanfmans rope
around the neck to be guilty of lynching.

    >Also, the term "right" used above indicates that I may not be
    >following what you are saying. To say one has a "right"
    >carries a number of connotations and I may have misunderstood
    >you. Are you saying that if individual A forces association
    >or property exchange from individual B without mutual consent
    >that individual A is acting immorally? I can't say illegally
    >(as the government may allow it), nor am I sure what is meant
    >by "rights" outside of the context of an agreement.

Yes.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: School Vouchers: Constitutionality?
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:52:59 GMT

It would seem to me that if school vouchers were legal, then within a year
there would be a Supreme Court case in the works regarding its
constitutionality.
A similar question was raised in the case Everson v. Board of Education.
This case dealt with the constitutionality of refuding the transportation
costs that were incurred to parents by sending their kids to parochial
schools.  The Court found that it was in fact constitutional because it
didn't violate the Establishment clause.  However, in their decision, they
stated that it didn't violate the Establishment clause because the aid was
given to the parents, in a manner which was outside of the school itself,
i.e. transportation.  However, if the aid were given to the parents
which more than just got their children to school but got them through
the doors too, i.e. school vouchers, then on the basis of stare decisis
in the Court's Opinion I would tend to think that the Supreme Court would
strike down any "school voucher" laws.
Since many private schools are parochial, every private school would have
to be treated equally.  It wouldn't be just to say that, provided school
vouchers were legal, if it's parochial, you can't have a voucher, but if
it's a non-parochial private school, then vouchers are o.k.
Thus, the test derived in the case Lemon v. Kurtzman would have to be
used in any future Supreme Court case, whether or not the school was 
parochial.  And, in doing so, the "school voucher" law would not pass the
second prong of the test, of whether or not religion is advanced or 
inhibited.  This is because if parents were not given school vouchers,
then they would be relying on scholarships provided by the school.  But if
they were given vouchers, then schools would throw away scholarship
programs because they wouldn't be needed.  And this would indirectly
"advance" (so to speak) the parochial school, i.e. religion.

Furthermore, the idea of "school vouchers" is utterly ridiculous.  If it
is proposed because it will give the chance for parents to send their
children to good schools, then doesn't this send a message that our
public school system is not adequate?  Instead of worrying about giving
parents school vouchers, why doesn't the government put that money into
the public school system.

Any comments, criticisms?

--
"I drank what?" -- Socrates

judson@watserv.ucr.edu
From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: NOT (Re: School vouchers)
Date: 10 Oct 92 11:08:13 GMT
            <BvtLDL.73L@cup.hp.com>
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

This is probably a waste of time.  But here goes.

(You get e-mail 'cause I can't post to ba.politics)

Written in article <BvtLDL.73L@cup.hp.com>
 by runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan):

: Am I correct in
: understanding that you believe that it is morally acceptable for you to
: hold your own property despite need of others?  If so, then can you
: imagine the existence of the opinion wherein a person might feel it is
: right for his society to hold its "property" despite the need of other
: societies?  The `line' is drawn in a different place.

So?

If you believe it is morally acceptable for an individual or a society
(merely a collection of individuals) to demand property or services from
another individual or society, what would you call it?

Most call it "theft," altho "rip-off" is probably more apropos.  "Theft"
is unfortunately defined as the "illegal taking" of something, so if the
govt does it "legally" it's not "theft."

: Am I correct in interpreting your apparent opinion that if a group of
: people require that each member of the group contribute to the success
: and survival of the group in order to be a member, then that group is
: acting immorally?

Oh, no, we aren't going to paint more irrelevant life-boat scenarios?

Obviously a situation which requires that ALL involved participate for
ANY to survive, and it's just your luck to get stuck with a suicidal
sociopath, MAY allow a moral imperative to use force.  However, please
note that this is SOMEWHAT dissimilar to the world today.

OK, let us assume, for the moment, that societal survival DEPENDS on 
COERCED contribution to society.

Prove it.  Ie, prove that society can NOT function without coercion.

Since you are effectively pointing a gun to my head and demanding
payment for services I never asked for and don't get, the onus is
yours to prove that we'll all suffer and die if I don't pay up.

Phil:
:> Most people really are uncomfortable with freedom -- because freedom
:> always requires that you are responsibly for your actions. ...

: It also implies that you be able to maintain your freedom despite the
: efforts of others.  Perhaps that is why societies form in the first
: place.

Societies form because Man is a social animal.  This does not imply a
right for individual A to force association or property exchange or work
exchange from individual B, without mutual consent.

: Mark Runyan

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
Wiker's Law: Government expands to absorb revenue and then some.
(historically, about $1.50 in new spending for very $1.00 in new taxes.)
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8585 ba.politics:6004
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Date: 13 Oct 92 12:56:32 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <195761@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes about Clayton's
_ad hominem_ attack on me (a tactic he claims to despise from his
opponents):

>You might also want to explain to Brian Kane your rationale for
>calling him "depraved".

He did. He told me that it was solely because of my sexuality. He's never
met me, not even come close to meeting me. That should give you some
idea of how "rational" he is when talking about sex.
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:45:14 GMT

Can anyone send to me the 4 parts of the Mother of All Flame Wars?

Thanks,
AAP
.

Xref: sparky ca.politics:8666 alt.politics.elections:16776 alt.politics.perot:2141 alt.politics.clinton:10405 alt.politics.bush:9142
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: <None>
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:25:31 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <12668@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 
> These postings by Gene Ward Smith, and the ones by Paul Bartholomew, 
> are such wonderful examples of what I was talking about.

Actually, I thought I was fairly restrained.  Please do point out the ad
hominem attacks in my postings, Clayton.  While you're at it, you can
respond to the substance, as well.  All I did was point out the truth,
which was that your conclusions often were not supported by the research.

Oh, I did also point out that you were a fine one to take the high ground
on ad hominem attacks, since most of your postings on this subject have
contained such attacks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:10:16 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <12725@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>If the schools started teaching that homosexuality was a form of
>subhuman behavior that justified murder, you would be tremendously
>upset about it.  (So would I, for that matter).
>
>So, should the schools reflect the concerns of parents, or teach
>something this repulsive?

Clayton, would you mind leaving this particular topic unsullied by
your hangups on homosexuality? Thanks!

You are posting a straw man argument here. Please post something
relevant to the discussion at hand.


-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes,sci.geo.geology,sci.astro,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.research
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: THE TRUE CAUSE & ORIGIN OF EARTHQUAKES (AND THEIR PREDICTION)
Keywords: ELF Monitoring, Earthquake Forecasting, Magnetic Fluctuations
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 12:35:44 GMT


N.B: I have removed sci.archaeology from this discussion, as it is not
particularly germaine to archaeology.

>
>DISCLAIMER -- This article is NOT sanctioned or approved by any agency
>or scientific body, it is being distributed simply as a public test of
>one individuals predictive methods and/or theory.  This submission
>soley represents the opinion of the author David K. Youmans.
>
Indeed, it does...

>
>
>                         BY: DAVID K. YOUMANS
>                        SEISMIC RESEARCH ASSN.
>                             P.O. BOX #163
>                        NEWPORT, INDIANA 47966
>
>                                             BY: DAVID K. YOUMANS
>
>                                                 (MARCH 1990)
>

>

 Despite all the theory advanced by seismologists today
>pertaining to plate tectonics, etc., scientists are still without any
>consistent or logical means of predicting them.  While these
>scientists proficiently claim they "understand" the physics of the
>Earth, the subject of earthquakes and their predictions cast more than
>a reasonable doubt on such claims.  It is highly unlikely that anyone
>understands anything until a predictable base of knowledge is
>established to bring about results that are consistent with the
>phenomenon in the REAL WORLD.

WRONG. You base your entire argument on this very flimsy presumption.
Many scientist would say that the fact that earthquakes cannot be predicted
consistently indicates that seismologists DO understand the chaotic dynamic
which is producing earthquakes. What makes you think that earthquakes behave
in a predictable fashion? Non-periodic, dynamic systems just arent very
predictable, except in the very short term. Part of 'understanding' is
knowing what you  cannot know.

--
Rob Dobson              University of Virginia Music Library
"Anything that starts with Ellington ends with an assassination attempt
on the Fuhrer!" --SS-Sturmbannfuhrer Hans Reinhardt, July 1944
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
From: Al Mark <amark@inst-sun1.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Earthquake Sensuality Scale
Organization: JPL
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1b2
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:41:27 GMT

Since there doesn't seem to be many earthquake postings lately (guess
that's OK), I'm offering my interpretation of earthquake scales.  "I
survived the 6/28/92 e-quake at Big Bear Lake."  I was at my home in BBL
when the Landers and BBL quakes happened and was home for the three weeks
following these events and live essentially at the BBL "ground zero". 
Lotsa people asked me how this or that aftershock felt, so I came up with
this scale.

THE MARK SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE SENSUALITY

Forget all the scales and the complications that only a seismologist can
make from them.  These classes are based on a "how-ya-doin'" sensuality
scale.


CLASS 3C	You didn't feel anything but some folks around you did.  This is
an academic event.  No thrill.

CLASS 3B	You think you felt something but you're not sure.  There is no
one around to confirm your feelings with.

CLASS 3A	You think you felt something.  Someone is near you and you ask
"Hey, did you feel that one?".  Maybe they ask you too.  Obviously, this
has more potential for being sensual than a Class 3B.

		

CLASS 2B	You don't care if there is someone around or not, but you just
start to move out with your beer in hand.  This one has more feeling than
the Class 3 types.  This one makes the monthly earthquake summary report
in the Times.

CLASS 2A	Whoa, howdy!  You are heading off the couch and forget the beer!
 Your "roommate" was taking a shower.  Much more sensual than a Class 3. 
Tune to Channel 9 for the latest word.  This is the most erotic of all
the classes.

		

CLASS 1B	You're flat moving out...don't care where to!!!  This has got to
be it!!!  No thinking required!!!  This one gets all the TV folks
breaking the soaps...too bad...you can't watch them anyway.  You run
around the neighborhood and shut off gas at the meters...and the alarms. 
Later, you sneak back into the house to find that bottle of Jack Daniels.

CLASS 1A	Bam!!!  "E+ ride" without a ticket, but short.  You aren't sure
what happened.  While you're in the coma, you have pleasant dreams of
tornadoes and hurricanes.  You are lucky if you can still spell g-a-s and
your arm (either one) still works well enough to fill out the paperwork.

? A. Mark 1992
********************************************************************
*  AL MARK                                                         *
*  Member of Technical Staff      I brake for trees                *
*  Jet Propulsion Laboratory                                       *
*  Pasadena, CA 91109             Honk if you like earthquakes     *
*  (818) 354-3134                                                  *
********************************************************************
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: <none>
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero)
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:07:12 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA

  I have been keeping the Postscript quake maps of Southern California
since the Landers Quake and putting them up on the wall for the edification of
visitors and to cover some really ugly wallpaper left over from my
ex-wife.

  Is it my imagination, or has the overall level of activity increased both
in degree and area in the last few weeks? Only recently do the maps show
activity on the Augine Caliente(sp) and San Jacinto faults.


-- 
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
From: dec@alex.com (Doug Clinton)
Subject: Re: THE TRUE CAUSE & ORIGIN OF EARTHQUAKES
Organization: Alex Technologies Ltd
Apparently-To: mail2news@news.demon.co.uk
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 08:16:26 +0000

In article <Bw68rw.Iv3@wrs.com>, gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven) writes:
|> In article 17169@alex.com, dec@alex.com (Doug Clinton) writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct15.124156.24607@afit.af.mil>, morlan@afit.af.mil (Bruce W. Morlan) writes:
|> >|> The deleted article falls under mysticism until it is used predictively.
|> >|> So, when's then next major quake?
|> >
|> >Presumably, then, all current research on plate tectonics, etc also
|> >falls under mysticism since it, too, has failed to ever predict a
|> >major quake?
|> 
|> The current researchers don't claim the ability to predict earthquakes.

So does that make what they do science, mysticism or just a hobby?


-- 
Doug Clinton				Alex Technologies Ltd,
dec@alex.com				32A The Mall, Ealing
					London, England, W5 3TJ

Xref: sparky ca.earthquakes:1206 sci.geo.geology:2139 sci.astro:10820 sci.archaeology:2632 sci.geo.meteorology:3244 sci.research:1184
Subject: Re: THE TRUE CAUSE & ORIGIN OF EARTHQUAKES (AND THEIR PREDICTION)
Keywords: ELF Monitoring, Earthquake Forecasting, Magnetic Fluctuations
Organization: Alex Technologies Ltd
Apparently-To: mail2news@news.demon.co.uk
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:54:05 +0000

In article <1992Oct15.124156.24607@afit.af.mil>, morlan@afit.af.mil (Bruce W. Morlan) writes:
|> Yeah, right.
|> 

|> The deleted article falls under mysticism until it is used predictively.
|> So, when's then next major quake?

Presumably, then, all current research on plate tectonics, etc also
falls under mysticism since it, too, has failed to ever predict a
major quake?

-- 
Doug Clinton				Alex Technologies Ltd,
dec@alex.com				32A The Mall, Ealing
					London, England, W5 3TJ

Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
From: scott@ryptyde.cts.com (Scott McClure)
Subject: Re: La Jolla "AuroraQuake"?
Organization: Ryptyde TimeSharing, San Diego, CA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:54:06 GMT

coconut@crash.cts.com (Brian Dear) writes:


>A few minutes ago, 9:55pm my time, the roof of my office building 
>started rumbling something fierce, for about 5 to 7 seconds.  I thought
>people were up on the roof of the building fighting or running around
>directly above my office.
>
[...]
>
>I have read in here recent notes about some sort of "Aurora"
>high speed military jet sonic booms in Southern California.
>But I thought it was just some L.A. phenom.  Not anymore!
>I would like to know more.  Is there any press writeup on
>this jet, and its activities in SoCal?  Or if it isn't a sonic
>boom, just what the heck is going on?
>
>-- brian
>
>Brian Dear /// Coconut Computing, Inc. /// brian@coconut.com

Sorry, no secret government projects involved here!  8-)

What you felt here in La Jolla was the shockwave from a giant explosion
at a Los Angeles petrolium refinery (Texico, I believe).
I just heard it on the radio just a few minutes ago.  I too was wondering
what it was last night.

Besides, any mythical/semi-mythical/classified military aircraft would be
tested out in the desert, NOT near a major population center. 

Scott

-- 
INTERNET:  scott@ryptyde.cts.com                     | "Nuke the homeless gay
ARPANET:   ryptyde!scott@nosc.mil                    |  baby whales for Jesus!"
UUCP:      {crash, nosc}!ryptyde!scott               |    - bumper sticker
Xref: sparky ca.earthquakes:1184 sci.geo.geology:2086
From: rlm@mcgort.COM (Robert McMillin)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Earthquake Sensuality Scale
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 18:29:34 PDT
Organization: PBSR (Private Beta Site Research - Certified NetWare Engineer)

Al Mark <amark@inst-sun1.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:

> Since there doesn't seem to be many earthquake postings lately (guess
> that's OK), I'm offering my interpretation of earthquake scales.  "I
> survived the 6/28/92 e-quake at Big Bear Lake."  I was at my home in BBL
> when the Landers and BBL quakes happened and was home for the three weeks
> following these events and live essentially at the BBL "ground zero". 
> Lotsa people asked me how this or that aftershock felt, so I came up with
> this scale.
> 
> THE MARK SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE SENSUALITY

HEY!  HEY!  Cut it out!  I mean, for sure, can't you totally see that,
like, people are trying to be serious here?  And you're making fun of
their, like, totally important messages?  Dude -- go to the bank, withdraw
all your money, and buy a clue!

Not!
Xref: sparky ca.earthquakes:1208 sci.geo.geology:2141 sci.astro:10825 sci.archaeology:2634 sci.geo.meteorology:3247 sci.research:1186