HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: luisg@hadarfai.com (Luis Galleguillos)
Subject: Fujitsu NTS test 
Originator: luisg@lugano
Organization: Fujitsu NTS
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:29:39 GMT


One Nice test after another

Newsgroups: ba.test
From: harker@Rational.COM (Robert Harker, 408-295-6239)
Subject: These get tiring
Organization: Rational, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 06:50:42 GMT

bla, bla, woof, woof
RLH
Newsgroups: ba.test
From: usenet@group1.uucp (Usenet News Daemon)
Subject: one more group1 AB
Organization: Group One, Ltd.; San Francisco
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:40:04 GMT


Here goes...
From: bfong@btr.btr.com (Beda Fong bfong@btr.com)
Newsgroups: ba.test
Subject: ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:28:32 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. For info contact: info@BTR.COM


asdf
asd
f
From: Hirsch#m#_Edward@msgate.corp.apple.com (Ed)
Newsgroups: ba.test
Subject: Bonehead
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:43:53 GMT
Followup-To: ba.test
Organization: Delta Sigma Phi

This is a test. I am a bonehead.
From: The Test Account <testy@Garg.Campbell.CA.US>
Newsgroups: ba.test
Subject: test
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 21:10:26 PDT
Distribution: ba
Organization: The Land of Garg

test
Newsgroups: ba.test
From: luisg@hadarfai.com (Luis Galleguillos)
Subject: test
Originator: luisg@lugano
Organization: Fujitsu NTS
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:47:05 GMT


I have a bad From line; It should be luisg@hadar.fai.com How to fix This?

Thanks
Newsgroups: ba.test
From: harker@Rational.COM (Robert Harker, 408-295-6239)
Subject: Just a little noise
Organization: Rational, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:59:42 GMT

To see of this is getting out.

RLH

Newsgroups: ba.test
From: ljensen@netcom.com (Colin Jensen)
Subject: Test
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:18:32 GMT

Test
From: luisg@hadar.fai.com (Luis Galleguillos)
Newsgroups: ba.test
Subject: Fujitsu test now!
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:25:18 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Fujitsu NTS
Originator: luisg@lugano


One more test please
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:08:56 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics,ca.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct4.044339.12485@pb2esac.uucp>, jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack
Brand) wrote:
> 
> In article <athos-031092151525@kip2-5.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
> >The differences between Herschensohn and Boxer on Education:
> 
> >Voluntary School         Supports.                 Opposes.
> >Prayer                   Believes that the
> >                         federal government
> >                         should neither 
> >                         prohibit nor
> >                         mandate prayer in
> >                         school.
> 
> Thank you very much - I'll be voting for Boxer.
> 
> If any issue qualifies for the "slippery slope" classification this
> one does.  The prime example I remember is a few years back "voluntary"
> prayer was reinstated in a public school in one of the New England
> states.  A followup revealed that this decision had quickly evolved 
> into the principal reading the Bible over the school intercom.  How
> surprising.

I'm from Upstate New York where we had a "moment of silence."  You were
encouraged to do whatever you wanted to in that time.

The US Constitution says that (1) you can't force me pray and (2) you can't
stop me from praying.  That's all Bruce is saying.  Boxer, on the other
hand, is saying that you CAN stop someone from praying.  That's against the
first amendment, unless you have another explanation?

--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Homophobic Majority?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 15:09:49 GMT

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

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

Then, does it mean that you consider "homosexuality" as a matter of
privacy?
I would have guess that being homosexual goes beyond what you do in your bed,
but it is a part of your being.

>    >Because you consider their private life your property when
>    >they come to work, even though in truth they leave their
>    >private lives at home.

What if it has nothing to do with their private life, but with the way
they behave in public. Doesn't the employer have the right to do bussiness
in the way he/she considers the best to make the most money?
What if the employer looses clients because of an homosexual employee that
has a very "homosexual" behavior?

AAP

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Rats, I guess I'm a Nazi
Organization: VisionAire, San Francisco, CA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:59:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.161238.18218@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>Why, no. You just stated an absolute -- teaching children the world is
>flat is immoral you just wrote.
>
>And that's pretty darned black and white, isn't it?
>
>
>So maybe you DO believe in absolutes and black and white?
>
>Or do you want to rephrase that?
>
>How about, "teaching children the world is flat is sometimes immoral,
>and sometimes O.K."?
>
>There, now THAT is nice and grey!

Nope.  Still black and white.  You stated that, absolutely, it is sometimes
immoral, and sometimes not.  This can be contrasted with "most of the time
immoral, and rarely not", etc.  It's still an absolute statement of
knowledge.  Even "grey" is a definate color....

This talk of no absolutes is silly, since your every communication rests
on the fact that they exist...

But I digress: this isn't sci.philosophy.meta, it's ca.politics--so start
discussing Gay issues and flaming Cramer like you're supposed to do in this
newsgroup, dammit!

_____
Steve Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:13:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.013218.25077@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
    >>Indeed, some people would say a "decline" in our society can
    >>be correlated to the increase in public schools for the last
    >>100 years ... :-)
    >>
    >How has society declined in the last 100 years? Technological
    >advances only are amazing: the automobile, phone, flight,
    >computer, space exploration, etc etc. Plus the majority of
    >the population has much greater rights: women, blacks,
    >children (no child labor) etc etc. Please explain what you
    >mean.

The car, the phone, flight, computer were all private market ideas.
They persist today.

Space flight is dead right now, thanks to the State.

The coercive laws of the State were the very mechanisms used to
place less than equal status on women, blacks.

Child labor laws are stupid and immoral.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

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

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:19:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.015942.12061@ntmtv>,
jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
>In article <st+p4#n.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>
>>Since money for the schools is being coerced (taxed) from people, they rightly
>>feel that they should not pay for ideas to be to taught to their kids that
>>they disagree with.
>>
>
>I agree with June's school voucher argument: it creates two classes
>of people: parents and non-parents. Parents would get some tax credit
>for taxes they paid, but non-parents would not.

That doesn't mean, however, that I oppose education choice.  I just
think it should be done with tax credits rather than vouchers.  If
someone expects me to help pay for educating their children they
better expect that I want a lot to say abouit what kind of education
I'm buying.  Tax credits which allow me to donate to what I consider
a good educational program and then deduct that expense from my
taxes gives everyone more control than we have under the current
system.

/June
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:57:44 GMT

In article <183777@pyramid.pyramid.com> jmuth@pyrps5.eng.pyramid.com (John Muth) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.194548.15916@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>>If you are really saving it for your children, give it to them as you go.
>>Gifts under a certain amount aren't taxable, so if you give it to them on
>>an ongoing basis, it won't be taxed.
>>
>>This completely avoids inheritance tax.
>
>Not true. I'm not sure of the details but gifts made while you are living
>offset your inheritence tax exemption. Gifts beyond a certain level are 
>subject to a special "gift tax". It's purpose is to collect the inheritance
>tax that you would have paid if you waited until you were dead. The limitation
>is something like 10K per year per gift.

The rule on gifts is anything under a TOTAL of $10,000 per year per
individual has no tax consequences.  Thus, if you are married, and your
children are married, you can give each married couple $40,000 per year
with no tax consequences. For example, you give you child $10,000 and
their spouse $10,000.  Your spouse gives your chikd $10,000 and their
spouse $10,000.  Of course, the kids don't even have to be married,
just as long as you don't mind shelling out bucks to their "SO".  Gifts
at this level would quickly break most parents that I know.

Gift taxes are a logical extension of inheritance taxes.  Otherwise, people
would "gift" their estates on their death-beds.

Guido

Guido
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: No on 9
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:21:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.004611.16649@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
alias rn rn -i=50
    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>Well, Richard, I tell you what I think, and why I think it,
    >>and what my premises are.
    >>
    >Don't we all ?

Nope, especially on the last two.

Example: me: "because of FOA, it therefore follows that ..."
         xx: "that's horrible. you is bad. you suck. nobody likes
	      you. yo mamma wears army boots ..."

-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

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

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Homophobic Majority?
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:47:34 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <12567@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <97037@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>You know what I mean! I don't have to agree with what you do with your
>>wife in private.

>Why does agreement have to exist for some private activities (who you
>have sex with) but not others (who you rent to or hire)?

>If consent isn't required for a private activity, then why do we
>allow women to say no to men about sex?

First of all, conesnt IS required for all private activities.

But if we consider employment TOTALLY private, then laws which protect
consumers suddenly become out of place. How can we insist that a company
follow environmental, or labeling, or other FDA regulations, if their
venture is totally private? If it's totally private, they can do anything
they want, and the public be damned.

Measurable harm, you say, is the only way to make exceptions?

If illness and death due to lead paint poisoning is measurable, why is
NOT the loss of a job due to invasion of privacy?

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cramer@optilink.uucp (Clayton Cramer): Message-ID: <12133@optilink.UUCP>
I realize it's difficult for a person as depraved as [Brian Kane].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Homophobic Majority?
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:31:07 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <97037@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <12531@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <96860@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
# ## Gee, I didn't know that anyone had to agree on private activities.
# 
# #So if some guy comes up and says, "Let's go to your place so I can
# #beat you with a whip and have sex with you," you shouldn't have the
# #right to say no?
# 
# You know what I mean! I don't have to agree with what you do with your
# wife in private.

You haven't answered the question: Why does agreement have to exist
for some private activities (who you have sex with) but not others
(who you rent to or hire)?

If consent isn't required for a private activity, then why do we
allow women to say no to men about sex?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Bush: War on Drugs, tax cut->bigger deficit.  Clinton: War on Drugs, spending
increase->bigger deficit.  What a great choice.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 3 Oct 1992 23:36:51 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

Rick Eames writes:
>Issue                    Herschensohn              Boxer
>Parental Choice          Supports public-          Opposes.
>                         private school
>                         choice.

Could you provide more info on H's views here?  [If you have
already, I apologize, but I've lost them or missed them &
I'm fuzzy on them.]  Is he a supporter of voucher plans, for
example?  


>Federal Bilingual        Believes that             Flip-flopped.  As
>Education                English should be         county supervisor,
>                         our national              Boxer said it should be
>                         language and              "a local decision," but


I'm most attracted to Boxer's 1st position here -- why shouldn't this
be a local decision?   I'm annoyed by calls for a national language --
the US, especially California, has always been multicultural, there 
are advantages (as well as disadvantages) in having a multilingual
society, & I don't see that there are any fundamental problems
in providing education in different languages.  What business is
it of the government's what language I choose to use?  I don't like either
candidate's position here.

>"As a kid, I went to California's public schools, and they were first 
>rate.  Now some of these schools are awful. It just shouldn't be that way."
>                                   --Bruce Herschensohn 10/1/92        

Well said.  At least he has some idea of what a public school is.
Where did Boxer go to school, anyone know? 
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5876 ca.politics:8449
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:27:09 GMT
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.

In article <athos-031092151525@kip2-5.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>The differences between Herschensohn and Boxer on Education:
>
>
>Issue                    Herschensohn              Boxer
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Merit Pay                Supports.                 No record.
>for Teachers

This is one of those issues that sound good in theory, but
I can't see any good way to implement it in practice.  I went
to public school in California, and one of the things that
struck me was that the best teachers frequently had what were 
considered to be "un-orthodox" methods.

In particular, the two best teachers I had in high school were
in a continual battle with the administration.  Frequently,
these battles were silly and pointed out the un-thinking rigidity
of the administration.  In particular, I had an english teacher
(the best teacher I had in high school) who wanted the class to
engage in dialog with him and the rest of the class when we were
discussing different works which we had read.  To facilitate this,
he decided to move the seats in the classroom into a large circle, 
and even allow the students to sit on the floor if the prefered.  
When the vice-principal saw this he ordered the teacher to put us 
back into nice neat rows.  With this kind of thinking in the administration, 
what chance do you think this teacher would have had when it came 
time to decide on his "merit raise" ?  Never mind that he was able 
to get kids read and discuss Shakespear - AND enjoy it.  We had people 
in that class who only showed up at school for his class.  Teachers 
like this are going to get screwed by any merit pay proposals.  Teachers 
who are conventional, and kiss the administration's ass are going to be the
ones who see those "merit" increases.

Guido
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Reply-To: jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:55:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.161333.461@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
<This first line is taken from another of Phil's postings. Sincere 
<apologizes if I misinterpret the intent>:
>
>Slavery could not have existed without the coercive State.
>
How is this?? This sounds like there were laws mandating slavery.

>The coercive laws of the State were the very mechanisms used to
>place less than equal status on women, blacks.
>
Which laws do you mean? (voting rights?)

Most areas of inequality are not mandated by law: (i.e. there were no
laws requiring that a woman get paid ~85% what a man would get paid
for performing the same job.) 

>Child labor laws are stupid and immoral.

Child labor laws limit the exploitation of children (aka cheap labor).
How is this stupid and immoral?

I'm not following your argument here (obviously).

Patti Jazanoski
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Homophobic Majority?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 22:30:36 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <96864@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >>What if the employer looses clients because of an homosexual
    >>employee that has a very "homosexual" behavior?
    >>
    >That's sexual misconduct.

No. I mean more like the time some big honchos from a Japanese company
toured a major Silicon Valley workstation manufacturer on the same day
the local lavender group placed flyers on all the cafeteria seats.

The Japanese had their own translator, but the SV company had a Caucasian
who could understand Japanese (unbeknownest of course), and the third hand
version of the exchange I got was something like this:

"What's this?"

"[It] talks about a day of support for faggots, sir."

"That's disgusting. You're kidding."

"No sir."

"[It] is this open here [in this "disgusting land of lesser breeds"]?"

"Yes sir, I think it is."

"It is bad enough we must buy foreign products for political considerations,
 but we will not buy products from degenerates."



I still think it is hilarious, especially when the locale executives, who
all considered themselves "progressives" heard the "lesser breeds" remark.

But the point is, what do you do when the customers don't like your
workforce?


    >Makes you wonder---the navy discharges sailors with
    >near-perfect records for merely making a verbal admission of
    >homosexual orientation, but gives a little slap on the face
    >and repromand to the fliers involved in the rape trials
    >(Tailhook scandal).
    >
    >Now, WHO has screwed up priorities?

Well, the aide to an admiral that was making homosexual passes to enlisted
mean (via virtue of his power position) was equally protected by the Navy
brass (guy was from a powerful East Coast family and all that).

However, THERE WERE NO RAPES. Sexual harrasment yes. And so far, 2 admirals
have been fired, 3 officers of high rank have been fired, and one admiral
demoted. And didn't they nuke the Secretary of ther Navy as well?




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

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

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5877 ca.politics:8450
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:04:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.205714.2281@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
    >>But apparently some people, perhaps, June among them, do not
    >>like this approach -- "I want a lot to say about what kind of
    >>education I'm buying".
    >>
    >I haven't got the foggiest idea what point you're trying to
    >makee here. You would have far more control over the
    >education you buy with tax credits than you do now.

The preceding paragrapgh, which I, alas, did not include, set the context
where you did not have children (did not benefit from schools you were
being taxed for). So it seemed that you were extolling as an advantage of
taxation for schools that you, a non-parent, could influence what is
taught to other peoples children.

I thus assume this is not what you meant to say???

    >"Let me make this perfectly clear." I'm against taxation for
    >EVERYTHING. But do not expect to replace all taxes in one
    >fell swoop. I have no magic wand. I have only my powers of
    >persuasion and that is limited to getting people to take
    >small steps in the right direction no to, from their
    >perspective, jump off a cliff.
    >...
    >An I am surprised that you have such a poor understanding of
    >what the Libertarian Party is attempting to do in the real
    >world.

Um, no, I understand WHAT the Libertarian party is about.

What I realize, and why I don't vote, is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to
be a significant politician (i.e., be able to change things) without
getting both co-opted and changed by the system.

Look at it this way -- if you lived in a nice Italian (mythical)
neighborhood with a strong Mafia, do YOU think the way to clean up
the protection rackets and the murder-for-hire "business" is to
joing the Mafia and work your way up to Godfather??????




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

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

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