HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: doconnor@layton.inews.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 14 Apr 92 04:38:34 GMT
	<1992Apr7.005733.1836@reed.edu> <LEE.92Apr10151831@meercat.wang.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: /eng/eng25/doconnor/.organization
In-reply-to: lee@wang.com's message of 10 Apr 92 19:18:31 GMT


lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes:
]
] Let's take one other example---the dress code that EDS was famous for.
] This is indeed important in projecting a certain image to EDS's big
] corporate customers, and may have been an essential part of Perot's
] accumulation of billions of dollars; but what does it say about the man:
] once again that he was more than willing to kowtow to bigwig] prejudice,
] and to convention, and to think nothing of unnecessarily taking personal 
] choices away as a condition of employment, all to make a buck.

I work at a company with a very lax dress code : no shorts from 8am to 5pm
on weekdays. Of course, that's only at the Arizona site. Other sites are
different : they allow shorts all the time.

Having said that, and even tho I enjoy the casual dress here immensly,
complaining about wearing a suit and tie, even a particular color of
suit and tie, being a condition of employment at EDS is silly.

Assuming the employees know before they took the job, then there's no moral
or ethical problem of even the slightest kind. It's pure quid-pro-quo.
I wear a suit and do other things for you, you pay me.

Perhaps some people think it limits people's fuzzy-logic "right" to
self expression. No, it doesn't. EDS employees could choose to wear
different clothes in front of customers, they could choose to insult 
customers, they could try to convert customers to their religion,
they could run naked in the street in front of customers. Like almost
any other company on the planet, EDS could then choose to fire them.

Many companies ( mine included ) insist that employees be at work
during certain fixed times. This is a bigger imposition on most
people than even a military dress code, and removes far more important
choices. Yet now one complains about companies that do this being
totalitarian dictatorships ( at least not because ot this. )

There are reasons for dress codes and fixed work periods. You or I may
disagree about the importance of those reasons. Most EDS employees
have the same option I would have if it REALLY bugged me : leave.

But, IMHO, why leave a job you otherwise like over such trivialities ?
Surely having rewarding, enjoyable work ( that pays ) is more important.

] My one and only question about the man is:  Who will protect me from
] H.Ross Perot if he becomes President?

The Congress and the Supreme Court. Checks-n-balances, remember ?
Wouldn't it be nice to not have half of Congress exhibiting a
fanatical loyalty to an Executive branch their supposed to keep
a check on ? Congress might become an undivided (pair of) house(s)
if the Presidant wasn't a member of either major party. Just like
the designers of our government intended it to be.
--
Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17625 alt.activism:7479 talk.bizarre:10731
From: jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Ozone problem burns Michael Deignan
Date: 8 Apr 92 06:31:43 GMT
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Detroit, MI

In article <1992Apr4.023330.20169@meteor.wisc.edu> stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Steve Jascourt) writes:
"
"There is a broad scientific consensus on the ozone/CFC problem, unlike on 
"so many other problems (e.g. greenhouse effect, nuclear winter a few years
"ago, etc.). The ozone problem is real and you will be very hard pressed to
"find a single atmospheric chemist who doesn't believe that CFC's have resulted
"in ozone destruction over Antarctica. The possibility for ozone loss at other 
"latitudes exists, but the mechanisms are less understood and observed losses 
"are considerably smaller than around Antartica, so far.
"
"The only person making false claims in this case is Mr. Deignan, who repeatedly
"posts baseless statements which can come only from his imagination.
"
"Stephen Jascourt    stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu

Stephen,
  Don't let Mr. Deignan get to you. He is a real jerk who likes to 
incite trouble and also engage in slander and defamation of character.
He and Mr. Karnes are two of a kind. (along with Mr. Dolan who may
not post to the net anymore, but he does spy on us - His last login
on his well acct. was 3/27). 

-- 
CAT-TALK Conferencing System   | E-MAIL: jp@Michigan.COM
+1 313 790 6426 (USR HST)      | MICHIGAN NETWORK SYSTEMS, INC.  
+1 313 790 6432 (TELEBIT PEP)  | 800-736-5984  FAX: 313-790-6437 
********EIGHT NODES*********** | TELEBIT, DIGIBOARD, ISC UNIX, MICROPOLIS
From: rburns@finess.Corp.Sun.COM (Randy Burns)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Polling Fraud?
Date: 14 Apr 92 09:43:03 GMT
Reply-To: rburns@finess.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: finess.corp.sun.com

In article 11329@midway.uchicago.edu, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <1992Apr14.004624.15558@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
> >In article <1992Apr13.214146.3820@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> >>Do you have any examples of the "many" instances of polling fraud?
> The fact that when the poll is constantly demonstrated to be wrong, they'll
> cease to have credibility.  There are too many poll-takers out there for
> someone to engage in "fraud."
Well, this is true of _electoral polls_, but not of many other kinds of polls.

Still, what I think is more common than polling fraud is "polling hysteria". 
People who make polls have a fair degree of cultural commonality. Sometimes, they
all go off on a tangent together(i.e. they have a common emotional reaction about 
how to phrase a particular type of question). Now eventually, these type of phenomena
get corrected. Still, that doesn't mean that they aren't influential.

> 
> As for people using polls to further their own agenda, it happens all the
> time.  The secret is education -- 
This is a good point.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17356 alt.activism:7377
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: "Government is not the solution, government is the problem!"
Organization: Small Business Systems, Incorporated, Esmond, RI  02917
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:55:39 GMT

balaji@nexus.yorku.ca (V. Balaji) writes:

>We get enough of this in the mainstream "free press". Why pollute Usenet
>with it?

You mean like the stuff Harel posts too?

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /   I'm not a bigot,
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /    I hate everyone.
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              / 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism
From: rjc@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray)
Subject: Re: Class Warfare is STUPID...
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 03:40:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.194038.18462@uunet!tellab5!odgate> mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly) writes:
>emamid@athena.ecs.csus.edu (David Emami) asks why the rich should pay a
>greater marginal tax rate than the non-rich.  Despite a lot of abstract
>arguing, he doesn't realize the real reason.  It's because there are
>more of us than them.  If they don't like it, they can leave.

                                         ...They already are...
   and taking those precious American jobs along the way.

  Ten years from now, after our government has succeeded in their
brilliant plan to tax US businesses into the ground or out of the country,
don't start screaming about unfair Eurasian business practices' damaging
our economy.

   Perhaps we should raise capital gains to 100% and >$100,000 income tax
to 75%? That should be a great stimulus for our depressed economy. :-)

BTW, you may find yourself in the so-called "rich" tax-bracket in a few
years if inflation blows up. Although technically, you are
rich, your income wouldn't have the buying power it does now.

>-- 
>--
>Mike Kelly               Odesta Corporation, Northbrook, Illinois, USA
>...!clout!odgate!mike    - Until odesta.com is registered.
>odgate!mike@clout.uucp   - From the Internet.




Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pinky@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Burbank)
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown and lack of thinking
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:59:58 GMT

aberman@cs.washington.edu (Andrew Berman) writes:

>In article <1692@nic.cerf.net> mitsu@nic.cerf.net (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) writes:
>>
>>	On C-SPAN yesterday (Thursday) in a meeting of the Board
>>of Editors of the New York Post, Jerry Brown indicated that he
>>was willing to adjust the tax system by upping the VAT 1% in order
>>to cushion or eliminate income taxes for those making under
>>$15,000.  Also, note that the VAT is *not* a sales tax, but only
>>a tax on profits (difference between cost of goods and price at which
>>goods were sold). 

>Uh, and guess who the VAT gets passed on to?
>The purchaser.

are you trying to say that taxes companies pay don't already get passed
on to the consumer?  do you live in some other reality?

>-- 
>Andrew P. Berman           |  [campaign spending limits] "make the democratic 
>Dept. of Computer Science  |  process less honest, less robust and less open."
>University of Washington   |  -- Jerry Brown under oath in California, 1989
>aberman@cs.washington.edu  |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst, MA
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 02:49:21 GMT

In article <HiZ1iB1w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:

>Since the original post stated that there was some intrinsic
>similarity between homosexuality and religion... I do think
>you may be slightly off track.

Did it now?

-- (begin included text) --

From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:23:40 GMT

>To inflict that life on someone who has no choice is a crime
>against humanity.

  Well, according to that philosophy, religion is a crime against humanity;
it is 'inflicting' a lifestype upone someone who has no choice.

-- (end included text) --

You see there the phrase "according to that philosophy."  Those of us
who passed high school English recognize this to indicate that the
logic of the original poster can accurately be applied to a different
setting: one in which religion, rather than homosexuality, is the
"inflicted lifestyle" in question.  It said nothing at all, explicit
or implied, with respect to some "intrinsic similarity" between
homosexuality and religion.

>This entire subject is starting to take on overtones of 'baby'
>logic..

I knew we never should have taken away your rattle.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Someone here suggested blue square badges for
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  straights.  Maybe we should try mauve
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  heptagons?" - Damian Cugley, on soc.bi
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18611 soc.motss:20662
From: mikea@psdslc3.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:59:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <9204131552.AA15210@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (AIESEC - Ohio State) writes:
>
>
>
>                 Ah the wit. MUCH to much free time.
>
>Ryan C. Scharfy




	Scharfy. Spellmaster of the Universe. Heed his wisdom, or he might
	marry someone you know and then you'll have to kill yourself.
From: rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Want Tsongas back in the race?  Call (617)422-0100
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:34:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: spcsun25.bbn.com

Tired of mud-slinging?  Want the campaign to get back to
a discussion of issues?

Then call Paul Tsongas' headquarters, (617) 422-0100, and say that
you'd like him to return to the race.  He says he's going to
wait another day or two before making his decision.

-- 
Ron Newman		rnewman@bbn.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Libertarians (lost the original subject) (LONG)
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 03:35:17 GMT

In article <54120@hydra.gatech.EDU> dsm@prism.gatech.EDU (Danny McGurl) writes:
>In article niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>[Lots of stuff deleted]

>:And how did you *gain* your property originally, if it wasn't through
>:the initiation of force?  Yes, you might have inherited it, or bought
>:it, but how did the original owner get it without initiating force?

>You sit on it and say "this is mine".  Ever hear of the homestead act?

Um, excuse me?   If we're limiting government actions to protecting
people's rights, then I don't think the homestead act is allowed.

What gives the government the right to give away land?

>-- 
>Danny McGurl                        "No, no Pixel!  Beer is not for baby cats."
>Office of Information Technology        --Richard Ames,
>dsm@prism.gatech.edu 		        __The Cat Who Walks Through Walls__

-- 
David M. Nieporent              |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu  |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
"Baseball stathead, and card-carrying member of the ACLU.  And proud of it."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18167 alt.politics.elections:902 sci.econ:3732
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Airline Deregulation
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:32:49 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr14.022555.6871@Princeton.EDU> jmo@courant.princeton.edu (Mike Orszag) writes:
>One additional point worth emphasizing is that the hub
>system gives carriers virtual monopoly powers on direct flights
>around their hubs, so that some degree of limited re-regulation
>on a local level on flights originating from hubs might be
>justified to make sure the market works properly; alternatively,
>landing slot rights could be made temporary or limited to a
>maximum per carrier under the antitrust laws.

But hub-spoke systems seem to be the most efficient way to run an airline.

There's only a monopoly if you're flying between two cities with one
airport each, which both serve as a hub for only one (and the same)
airline.  More likely than not, there's at least a duopoly (you're
flying from one airline's hub to another airline's hub) and for cities
like New York (three airports) and Chicago (two airports, one of which
is huge) there may be something approaching true competition.  (Plus the
fact that airlines *are* in competition with other methods of transportation,
which limits how far they can gouge consumers.)  The degree to which the
current airlines show profits seem to indicate that there's very little
extraction of monopoly rents going on.
-- 
Ted Frank          + "He wanted to be the car rather than the thimble or the
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  hat."  -- District attorney explaining Marc Cienkowski's
U o' C Law Skool   +  murder with bow and arrow of Michael Klucznik in
Chi, IL 60637      +  Doylestown Borough, PA over a game of Monopoly.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18589 alt.politics.elections:1046
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Social Security Debate (was Sold Down the River...)
Keywords: deficit
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:03:45 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

cf@blackjack.dt.navy.mil (CF Snyder) writes:

[followups to talk.politics.misc]

> I think your comment
> about people over 65 wanting to ride free on the younger
> generations is a little over stated.  

The real question is why wealthy people over 65 feel that they have
the right to a welfare check which comes from the most regressive tax
in our system.  I don't begrudge support to poor elderly folks, but it
really grates on me that my tax dollars go to pay welfare to someone
who needs the money less than I do.

--Scott
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17508 alt.individualism:2353
From: meyer@team01.enet.dec.com (Martin Meyer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization.  Was: College Was: Perot
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:23:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Apr7.171124.21483@kpc.com>, emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes...
>In article <rq8f0INN1kn@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>>sike@athena.mit.edu (Michael G Sheldon) writes:
>>
>>I write:
>>
>>>|> ...  Drugs should be legalized.  The illegality of drugs
>>>|> creates crime, not the drugs.
>>[By this reasoning, the illegality of murder]
----
considering that orginazed crime in the 20's and 30's was a direct result of he
porhibition on booze and that the new crime  gangs are a result of the illigal
status of several drugs....

it seems to prove that where ever there is a stupid law creating a
victimless crime, and there is a market for the for what ever is made illegal
those involved in crime will naturally gravitate to that market.   the longer
the activity is illegal the more people there will be involved in supplying it,
and the larger the criminal pool will become.   Easy money is hard to walk away
form for all who have tryed it whether it from illegal activities or high
paying legal activites.  the difference is what you have to sell. 

legalizing victimless crime will not make criminals disappear, nor will it make
those involved in currently labeled victimless crime act more responsibile for
their actions, though it would probably make it less expensive for them and in
turn less expensive to society who is ultimatly paying the bill.  

Dont get me wrong, i'm not a bleeding heart, but the cost of the WOD is just
too high.  RE 60 Minutes Apr 5 1992 as a minor example.  People who are 
deeply involved in drugs, do so because they can't deal with  or face "their"
reality, (what ever that may be). Its too bad that we, the rest of the people,
have to pay so much for their problems.  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party Chair to speak at Stanford University
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 06:33:55 GMT

fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>Mark.Hinkle@f6.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Hinkle) writes:
>> 
>>U.S. Senate Candidate, June Genis, who is running for the 6 year term
>    This is the same June Genis that reads this group?
>  ...explains the previous biased postings against Perot :-)

This is the same June Genis who asked what GATT was???  Sounds like
our pick for chairing Senate Foreign Relations or Trade & Commerce.

(-; (-; (-; (-; (-; 

gld

PS: The article referred to was only distribution USA but it might
be in our buffer still ... (-;
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				U.S. Elections 1992, Vote Now:
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		a) Elvis 50's stamp, or
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			b) Elvis 70's stamp?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17399 alt.individualism:2334 alt.activism:7392
From: cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: right to bear arms
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Louisville
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:36:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.143224.10184@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
> 
> In <15APR199221301151@venus.lerc.nasa.gov> :
> 
> |>>cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes
> |>>>A note about the constitution and the right to bear arms:
> |>>>
> |>>>1)it guarantees your right to own a musket.(that's all thefirearms they had
> |>>>back then)
> 
> |I find it amazing that this issue of technology with regards to the intent
> |of the Constitution is still being debated.  It should go without saying that
> |only the mentally-impaired would believe that the Constitution is limited or
> |made obsolete by technology. I would say that the opposite is true.
> 
> Especially when the recognition of the advancement of technology is
> clearly recognised in the Constitution under Sec. 8:
> 
> 	To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
> 	for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive 
> 	right to their respective writings and discoveries.
> 	
> The amazing thing is to see editorials supprting this "musket"-only
> nonsense in newspapers; the counter-argument of analogy to printing
> presses and television are so obvious that you wonder if monkeys
> write these editorials; and, in fact, they do. :-)
> 
> However, this raises an interesting question for those that _DO_
> support the musket-only thesis: how would they modify the wording
> of the Second Amendment such that it would be inclusive of weapons
> technology of the future? If "arms" is not an all-inclusive term
> for anti-personel weapons of today and tommorrow, then what term
> is?


Yes, the musket theory puts my point in silly terms. (Next time I'll
include the :) )   One of the problems with this country is that we have 
founding fathers that we assume could do no wrong.  Ask yourself this: if
Thomas Jefferson and Co. were around today and saw drive-by shootings in Los
Angeles by kids bearing shotguns do you _honestly_ think they would be so
anxious to allow everyone to easily own a gun?    I don't.  In one of the
founding father's diaries (I think it was Hamilton, but I may be wrong) they
stated that their intention was to allow for the formation of a civilian
militia.  Don't be so sure that the writers were perfect.  (If you do, you are
essentially supporting slavery, since _they_ included it) 

	I'm not against allowing people to own guns.  I just think we ought to
apply a little  _common sense_ in how we do it.  Note: yes, the constitution
was written before TV came along, but TV has the FCC to keep anyone from
broadcasting "Debbie Does Dallas" on the teeny bopper stations.  TV and radio
stations need liscenses, but why not gun owners?  Tell me a rational reason
(not 'because the constitution says so') why we can't have a test for gun
ownership? or even _handgun_ ownership?
   



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17786 ca.politics:3415 ba.politics:2631 alt.politics.homosexuality:1984 soc.motss:19969
From: djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 9 Apr 92 04:44:58 GMT
Organization: NMS&Systems Engineering

barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:

> 	Keep up the good work.
> 
> 						Kayembee

I have every intention of doing so. :-)

-djk

--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
--- NMS&Systems Engineering ----------------------------------------
--- Djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM / ..CtEdge!Nitro!Djk ----------------------
-- 'innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism