HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Well, even Adolph had to start at thge bottom ...
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:17:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.173242.2811@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
    >>For example, the Statement of Academic Freedom and Tenure,
    >>which is accepted at all California instituions of higher
    >>learning that receive public funds, states that students and
    >>faculty "they should be free from INSTITUTIONAL censorship or
    >>discipline".
    >>
    >How does this constitute "INSTITUTIONAL censorship or
    >discipline" ?

Via the imposition of an institutional censorship code upon an individual.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Am I a winner?
Date: 7 Jan 93 02:36:58 GMT
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.

In article <1993Jan7.002141.21407@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:

[ the rules for ba.politics drinking game ]

>THE WINNER:
>
>The last one to unsubscribe from the group is the LOSER.
>Get it?

As I am moving out of state in a few days I hereby unsubscribe :-)

Depending on netnews availability at my new site, I may or may not
ever appear in [bc]a.politics again.  But it's been fun.  Somebody
write me if anyone ever changes their mind about anything :-)

jb

(P.S. *I* was Clayton Cramer.  The part of Cramer will now be played
by Mark Walsh.)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
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: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:01:16 GMT

In article <1ickojINNo5t@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
    >Interesting to me are the cases of people knowing someone,
    >working with them, liking them, etc. then they find out they
    >are gay- and bang, they reactive training kicks in and
    >suddenly they are uncomfortable or disgusted. It all comes
    >down to conduct and behavior no matter what the person does
    >it their private and public life.
    >
    >It is two-faced or hypocritical to like someone as you
    >currently know them, then to suddenly not like them becuase
    >of something you learn about them that has no harm or context
    >in your own life, as long as all conduct is on the up and up.

a. what if this likable guy etc. turns out to have been convicted and served
   time as a child molestor? Twice! As an adult, it is of no possible
   harm to you. Do you still like this guy in exactly the same 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: Why Do We Have Separate Restrooms? (WAS Re: Gays, the military...)
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 09:24:11 GMT

In article <lkhubrINN1e0@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham) writes:
>|> Why then have those professional male athletes (that are homosexual):
>|>   1. Entered their professional sports profession.
>|>   2. THEN announced their homosexuality
>|>   3. Then complained about unease and a marked difference in treatment
>|>      in that very locker room setting?
>
>Professional male athletes are not the general population.  I would
>not be surprised by either statement - that the general population
>doesn't care, and that athletes do, nor would I be surprised at both
>being true at the same time.


That's a very BALD assertion. Perhaps that's what you'd like to believe, but,
it is not the situation in general.

WHY should pro athletes be "more" bothered?

After all, the PC line is that dislike of being around homosexuals
is from fear, low self-esteem and other such things. If any thing,
given the egos and high self esteem of pro's, it should be the inverse.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Well, even Adolph had to start at thge bottom ...
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 09:03:00 GMT

In article <184767@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
    >>Sig Heil Merline - fuck democracy, how dare a popularly
    >>elected person vote against the way YOU want. Too bad we
    >>don't have no labor kamps, eh?
    >>
    >OK, Phil...make up your mind: YOU decry being coerced through
    >democratic voting processes, now you're declaring that you're
    >for it.

George, I really do believe that you live to see people respond to you on
the net -- you post so stupidly that the only thing that can keep you
around is mentiopn of your name. How sad.

But in any case, we'll try to teach Mr. Lambert a few more concepts.

To voluntarily join an organization, and to agree to submit to rules made
via a pre-agreed (or accepted) process is quite valid. In this case,
various rules for campus life are decided democratically. Since those rules
do not affect me nor any one else WHO HAS NOT VOLUNTARILY CHOSEN TO
LIVE BY THEM, then there is no problem.

Can you see that point?

Now, given that the rules are of a democratic nature, one would expect
that no one save an idiot or a fascist would have a popularily elected
person (at least twice mind you -- so his platform(s) is well known)
be "recalled" for implementing his platform.

No one - except a fascist. Or our New Age variant, the Politically Correct
"person".

Now the essential point is that Merline is upset that her views are not
supported by a democratic process -- so she tries a coercive process.




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Well, even Adolph had to start at thge bottom ...
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:07:38 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <1993Jan4.233744.1311@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
			The usual drivel
>
>
>Sig Heil Merline - fuck democracy, how dare a popularly elected person
>vote against the way YOU want. Too bad we don't have no labor kamps, eh?
>
OK, Phil...make up your mind:  YOU decry being coerced through democratic
voting processes, now you're declaring that you're for it.  

Phil, I guess you're PC too: Politically Convenient.

This is typical of your consistency on issues, and points out yet again that
you deserve the name 'Phool'.

Have a day.

George Lambert
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Is this wrong, or what?
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:12:43 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1993Jan3.220822.13969@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

Question:  Why are you keeping the identities of John Doe and the
company secret?

>The following is a true "situation" that happended in the Bay area in the
>last five years. It is so unbelievable that I'd thought I ask if others
>have the same sense of outrage that I have.
>
>If you don't have any sense of outrage, I'd like to know that as well.
>
>Maybe it's juts me ....
>
>A medium size, well known corporation in the multi-billion dollar range.
>
>A senior officer (John Doe) of the corporation drove his vehicle off road,
>killing himself in the process. The next day, as the news of this accident
>spread through the company, another piece of news emerged.
>
>John Doe was to be arrested for child molestation. He had been molesting
>the 14-year old daughter of one of his employees for 5 years.
>
>He was aware of the forthcoming arrest, and had described his suicide the
>day before his death to several friends.
>
>Now, what enraged me was the attitude of the corporation.
>
>The corporation did not offer one word of sympathy or contrition to the
>girl or her parents. There was no word of any investigation. At John
>Doe's funeral, the entire set of senior executives turned out with
>nothing but praise.
>
>The senior executive passed unanimously a memorial resolution filled
>with glowing terms about John Doe's life.
>
>5 months later, the corporation, as many corporations do, issued a
>company medal with John Doe's picture -- the medal being issued to
>others with one of the criterion being [work with young people!!!!!]!.
>
>One senior executive did write a protest about the "panegyrics to a child
>molestor ...", but he was pressured to keep silent.
>
>
>
>Now, in my book, this man, John Doe, should not be honored, and it is a
>horrible example that a corporation would paint such rosy picture of
>such a sick man. And to issue a medal with this guy's picture on it is
>all the more obscene.
>
>Now one extreme account of this asserts that this "sweeping under the rug"
>is more or less because the other senior executives are guilty, in though
>if not deed of wanting or doing [sexual encounters] with underage girls.
>
>I believe this is hyperbole, but WHY would a corporation honor such a
>dishonorable person.
>
>Or is it just me?
>.
>
>-- 
>I believe Gennifer Flowers.
>
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Am I a winner?
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:43:24 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1993Jan7.023658.8392@pb2esac.uucp>, by jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand):

> As I am moving out of state in a few days I hereby unsubscribe :-)

No Jack!  Don't do it!  We need all sides represented in
debate here; who could possibly fill your shoes?

> (P.S. *I* was Clayton Cramer.  The part of Cramer will now be played
> by Mark Walsh.)

I appreciate the nomination, but there is no chance that I
could survive the confirmation hearings given that:

- I have voted democratic 99% of the time (100% this last
    time around).

- I have never owned a firearm (other than a BB rifle).

- I harbor no fears of gays (my best man is gay).

- I do not entertain religious beliefs (but was raised
    as a catholic).

- I do not have children (good control here).

- I used to shave my legs (bicycle racing).

- All of my passenger cars are of non-American origin
    (my trucks are American, but I almost never drive them).


Thank you very much for your consideration, but I feel
that the present Clayton has been doing an excellent job,
and should continue his duties.

Cheers -- Mark
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: It is wrong to judge without facts-(was Re: I am a great skeptic on 2nd-hand stories
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:15:28 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan5.092018.12391@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1iamliINNa0c@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
>    >I think his question is valid- knowing the name of the
>    >company may change the scope of perceptions about why they
>    >acted in the purported way that they did. Whether this
>    >company is PC or non-PC is irrelevant.
>
>Why? A man molests a minor. He kills himself. The company does not
>apologize. It lauds the molestor.
>


Let's take a look at the purported conditions.

A company's employee molest the daughter of another company employee.
The molestor kills himself, becuase of purported self-confession to molestation.
The molestor's employer does not apologize- why do they need to?
The molestor's company lauds his accomplishments- why not?

Now- we have assumed his guilt, and have very little in the way of evidence. I 
cannot make a judgement against the company or its' employees based on this data.

But if the record is clear about his accomplishments within the framework of
the company, then I am sure, since most funerals work that way, they will say
nice things about him.

If you want to talk about interesting situations of laudatory actions- look at
JFK and RFK, they were as we see it today, womanizers, and there are possibly
other 'seedy' and 'dark' connections in their lifes.  But we hold them and did
hold they in the highest esteem- and said nothing but great things about them
when they died.


>Why is the name of the company important? Why?
>

Was it important to know the name of the company that caused the Valdez oil spill?

If it felt that someone or some entity has done something wrong- either morally or 
legally, it is difficult to make judgements and take actions if one does not know
who or what they are judging.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Is this wrong, or what?
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:18:13 GMT

In article <b0bC035Qc7Bq00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
    >In the first place, you said that the man was *going to be
    >arrested* for child molestation. And you seem to have taken
    >his supposed suicide as proof of his guilt. Based on what you
    >posted, *I* refuse to presume that the man is guilty,
    >therefore for me, the entire basis for your outrage is
    >non-existent. Frankly, I am more outraged that our society
    >has taken on a witch-hunt mentality with regard to child
    >molestation to such an extent that the mere threat of
    >*arrest* can drive a man to suicide, if that was indeed what
    >happened. I am also not prepared to assume, based on your
    >posting, that the man really killed himself. I'll admit that
    >*if* he described his suicide to friends beforehand, that it
    >is likely that he killed himself, but that is still hardly
    >proof. Car accidents and coincidences *do* happen.

I've posted more information. Without that, your hestitation is rational.

    >}I believe Gennifer Flowers.
    >
    >Why?

Unlike Anita Hill, she has proof, Clinto doesn't deny it, and Clinton
discussed with Cuomo his mistake in being with Gennifer Flowers. And
more than one person has been recounting theor presence in the Clinto Governors
mansion when Hillary and Bill had it out in a shouting match over
Gennifer (hint ot politicians -- never ever argue about your mistress
with your wife in a public place).



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Cable TV: Disorganized Crime, Was: Re: dangerous group
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:31:07 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:

}From article <26qW0338c7Ym00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, by jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston):
}> It's called "greed".  There _is_ such a thing as a fair and reasonable
}> profit that serves equally well the two purposes of providing sufficient
}> profit for the stockholders and making most customers feel that they are
}> getting their monies worth.  It is not necessary to push the former to
}> the upper limit while pushing the latter to the lower limit.

}I hope that this does not cause you grief, but the purpose
}of most businesses is to make money for the owners of that
}business.  Call this greed if you will, but it is the basis
}for the world as we know it.  Sure, there have been experiments
}to the contrary (communism, socialism, etc.), but they have not
}worked out very well.  Who is better at determining the manner
}in which a business should be run?  You?  Me?  The government?
}Oh, what about the owners?  Hmmm...  they might know something.

Jeez, guy, did you even bother to read what I wrote before you jerked
your knee and responded?  Show me where I attacked capitalism.  show
me where I suggest that communism is or would be better.

I did not say that capitalism is greed, nor that making a profit is
greed.  I said that it is greed when you can't be satisfied with a
*fair and reasonable* profit, but instead find it necessary to push
your profit to the absolute limit at the expense of all else.

}> But do you get CNN, Nickelodean, Arts & Entertainment, American Movie
}> Classics, USA, Lifetime, The Family Channel, Bravo, TBS, TNT, MTV?  I

}Much of the programming available through these services is
}already available free through the land based station
}network.  And might I suggest the new VCR Plus?

Sorry, but this is flatly wrong.  Very little of what I watch on ANY
of the above cable channels is available through ANY other source that
I know of.  And what the hell does a VCR Plus have to do with this?  I
have a nice VCR and I'm perfectly capable of programming it, thank you.

}> Your argument is the same as arguing that PG&E is not a monopoly because
}> you can just use candles and a kerosene heater.

}Will your life be threatened if you get your [TV] cable
}disconnected?  If so, seek professional help immediately.

Why are you so bent on blowing everything totally out of proportion?  I
said nothing about lack of cable threatening my life, I was only disputing
your point that cable TV is not a monopoly.  It is most definitely a
monopoly in most areas.  Your argument that there are alternative ways
of obtaining TV signals does not lessen that monopoly in any way.  The
monopoly is on the *cable* service, not on TV signals in general.
Understand?

--James Preston
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Cable TV: Disorganized Crime, Was: Re: dangerous group
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:54:56 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

}Have you considered that the small advantages of some cable channels,
}don't justify having cable service?  I can't imagine what so many
}people find so worthwhile about watching TV, that it justifies
}paying so much money to cable companies.

}Used to have cable.  Now I have an antenna.  Even better, I have a
}daughter who, much of the time, prefers curling up with a good book
}instead of being mesmerized by the boob tube.  (My son may take a
}little longer.)

}TV is the opiate of the masses.

Why is it that anytime someone starts a thread complaining about cable
TV service, a few people find it necessary to try to sidetrack the
discussion into this completely irrelevant area of whether or not TV
is worthwhile?

Clayton, I'm very happy that you and your daughter do so much reading.
But where in hell do you get the right to pass judgement on how other
people decide to spend their leisure time?  If I enjoy watching TV,
and I want the services that cable TV provides, what damned business
is that of yours?

If you want to start a general discussion of the "evils" of TV and
whether or not it is the "opiate of the masses", then by all means
do so, but do it on a seperate thread.  Leave this one to those who
might just want to discuss the *original* topic of whether or not
something can be done about bad cable service.

--James Preston
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Well, even Adolph had to start at thge bottom ...
Date: 5 Jan 1993 22:12:33 GMT
Organization: Sun
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine

In article <lkjpgqINN3sq@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham) writes:
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>|> SJMN today:
>|> 
>|> Andy Pugno, 19-year old Political Science major at UC-Davis, self described
>|> as conservative and a Republican, is facing a recall for his seat on
>|> the executive council of the Associated Students of the University of
>|> California.
>
>Can you explain what this "recall" process consists of?  If it consists
>of a popular vote on the issue of removing him from office, then that
>is just the democratic process at work.

Relavent quote:

  I was from Connecticut, whose Constitution declares 'that all political
  power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded
  on their authority and instituted for their benefit; and that they have
  *at all times* an undeniable and indefeasible right to *alter their
  form of government* in such a manner as they may think expedient.'

  Under that gospel, the citizen who thinks he sees that the
  commonwealth's political clothes are worn out, and yet holds his peace
  and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal; he is a traitor.
  That he may be the only one who thinks he sees this decay, does not
  excuse him; it is his duty to agitate any way, and it is the duty of
  the others to vote him down if they do not see the matter as he does.

	  A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur's Court
	  by Mark Twain


In short, if the people who voted for Andy Pugno are unhappy with the
way he votes in council, they are perfectly right to vote him back out
of office, via the recall process.  That process has to be initiated by
*somebody*; who else but someone who most thinks his actions hurts
women and gays?  If the majority of the people are happy with the way
he votes, it is their right and their duty to vote down the recall
petition.

As for how I would vote if I were there; I'd have to know more of the
story.  Are people mad because he broke his political promises, or are
they mad because they lost fair and square?

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags 
-- that is a loyalty of unreason, it is pure animal (Mark Twain).