HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: JFH and Fred's Ridiculous Flaming
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 21:55:05 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <21492@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
|> During that discussion, at no time did I state that I had Joe in the
|> KILL file.  It has always been Joe who assumes he is in the KILL file
|> because I don't respond to what he writes.
|> 
|> Next myth.

----------
From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)
Message-Id: <20561@rpp386.cactus.org>
Date: 27 Mar 92 15:02:02 GMT

Since it was Joe that ascribed my meaning that we had closed minds to my
statement that he would do well to not argue with us, you would be correct
in ignoring what he wrote (it's what I do - that's why I have him in my
KILL file).
----------

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
From: cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Bible, Homosexuality, Translations, etc.
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:37:22 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <6aiEr*mY0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> [Joseph Lockett wrote:]
>> All right, dammit.  WHERE does it condemn homosexuality?

>Why?  You've already admitted that you won't believe it?  You are supposed to be
>an "expert", why can't you look them up yourself?  You don't need the quotes.

Why don't you tell the rest of us, then?  I've never claimed to be an
expert.  I've read the Leviticus condemnation of homosexuality, but
as has already been mentioned, most of the rules set forth in Leviticus
are no longer followed (at least by Christians), so if you think that
this one should, you will need to justify it by something more than
saying "it's in the Bible."

As for Paul, I don't know what he said about it.  Tell us where and
I'll look it up.

Here's a general question for you.  I suppose this has no bearing on
the original subject here, which was what _the Bible_ says about
homosexuality.  But it does relate to some other flamage that's gone
by.  Do you think that a person can believe in the existence and
teachings of Jesus, believe that following him is the one true way to
salvation, and yet not believe that Paul, or some other prophet, was
divinely inspired?  Who said Paul was divinely inspired?  Anyone I
can trust to know better than myself?  Anyone (besides Paul) who was
there at the time?  What if I think Paul's teachings contradict those
of Christ?  (Note that I didn't say whether I do think that.)  Can I
not then be a Christian?

-- 
Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + cathyf@rice.edu
Why throw stones even if your own house isn't glass?  Do you really want to
wreck your friends' houses?  What if your enemy retaliates with a torch?
And are you sure you don't even have a glass window somewhere?
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Pl
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:16:42 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <21475@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <3309.91.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us> david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) writes:
>>   Let's not forget John-boy's favorite SuperChristian and Founding Father
>>   Thomas Jefferson, who carried on an extramarital affair with Sally
>>   Hemmings, one of his slaves.
>
>Wasn't Jefferson's wife dead at the time?
>
>Oh, and I found this choice piece -
>
>	"  Locke was for a brief period strongly influenced by the
>	 conservative political views of Hobbes.  This influence
>	 changed, however, after his association with Anthony Ashely
>	 Cooper, the earl of Shaftesbury.  In 1667 Locke moved into
>	 Shaftesbury's London home, where he served as physician,
>	 secretary, and travelling companion.  A zealous Protestant,
>	 Shaftesbury was considered by his contempories to be a
>	 radical in both religion (he is known as the father of
>	 Deism) and politics. "
>		-- The Western Heritage (MacMillan Pub.)
>
>Bwhahahhahahahahahahah!  The Father of Deism was a Protestant Christian
>Zealot!  John Locke was a buddy of the Father of Deism!  Jefferson's
>political and religious views are DIRECTLY tracable to John Locke!  Have
>we now put to rest the false rumour that Deism and Protestant Christianity
>are mutually incompatible?

So what? I have friends who are Christians, but that doesn't make me one. My
understanding of Deism is that it holds God created the world, but does not
take an active part in it. Hence believing in miracles was out for Deists.
This is contrary to what many believers I know think. I think the main point
is this: although many of the founders believed in God, they choose to
keep government independent of this belief. Hence our constitution makes no
mention of scriptures, Jesus, or specific holy persons. So the motto
"In God We Trust" applies equally to Christians, Jews, and those who follow
the teachings of Mohammed.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Pl
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 22:17:53 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <3473.91.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us>, david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)  writes:
|>    My theory is that it was a typo that never got corrected. I'm pretty
|>    sure it should be "In Gold We Trust" since that is nearer the truth for
|>    this country.

:-)

|>    Also, this motto dates back to at least the war of 1812 since it is
|>    mentioned by Francis Scott Key in the second verse of The Star Spangled
|>    Banner, which was written during that war.

Actually it's in the 4th verse, but I didn't know it until you said
so.  The line is "And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust'".  This
is pretty close, but Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, who is
singlehandedly responsible for the inclusion of religious graffiti on
our coins (without voter or congressional approval I might add), never
mentioned the Star Spangled Banner as his inspiration.  He considered
several slogans before deciding on "In God We Trust", including "God,
liberty, law", "Our Trust Is In God", "Our Trust in God", "Our God And
Our Country", and "God Our Trust".  What I don't know is if the Star
Spangled Banner was widely known at the time, as it didn't become the
national anthem until 1931.  Even now, it is the rare American who
knows more than the first verse.

Despite what Francis Scott Key wanted to believe, the people who 
founded the country and wrote the Constitution had already come up
with a national motto 32 years before he witnessed the bombardment of
Fort McHenry:  E Pluribus Unum (One Unity Composed Of Many Parts). 
How wise of them to want to bring people together rather than divide
them.  I doubt they would have been pleased to see Eisenhower and his
band of McCarthyites repeal their vision in 1956.

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:19:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.192554.17861@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Sep15.174908.23794@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>So?  Bush advocates a "I don't care where you invest it" long-term tax
>>preference, called the "capital gains tax", and Clinton disagrees.
>
>You have a flawed premise.  I believe that things like stock
>speculation, paper profits from leveraged buy-outs, etc., would all
>get favorable tax treatment under Bush's plan to cut ALL capital
>gains.  There is no 'long-term' particularly required under Bush's
>plan (unless he has changed it since I heard it last).

The term McCall is looking for is "long term capital gains" tax
cut.  Bush proposes it; Clinton opposes it.

>>Therefore, Clinton is pushing tax preferences for SELECTED long-term
>>investment, lying and/or agrees with Bush.  Let's assume the first.
>
>Since your premise is flawed, your conclusion is flawed.

Try again.

>Let's assume, instead, that Clinton's plan only gives credits to money that
>is left in place for over a certain amount of time (like 5 years).

Now we have McCall assuming that Clinton's lying, that he isn't really
interested in targetting tax preferences, even though he says he is.
That's an interesting opening.

>>We've tried that; it was the pre-81 tax policy.  Political tax
>>preferences are POLITICALLY rational, but Clinton has to argue that
>>his long-term preferences will be ECONOMICALLY rational.  Considering
>>the record, that's a hard argument to make.  Let's see it.
>
>Since that's not what we're talking about,

McCall is right.  That's not what we're talking about; it's what
Clinton is talking about.

My questions are irrelevant to the discussion McCall wants to have,
because they concern Clinton's program, and McCall's discussion
assumes that Clinton's program is something other than what it is.

My apologies.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:12:08 GMT

In <1992Sep8.145856.23007@news.eng.convex.com> Patrick F. McGehearty <patrick@convex.COM> writes:

>direct political gain - allow sale of jets to Taiwan (contrary to a 1982
>agreement with China) in order to save 3000 military jobs at General
>Dynamics, to enhance his hopes for carrying Texas, where polls show he is
>neck and neck with Clinton.  

There are no 'military jobs' at General Dynamics, with the exception
of contracting officers (who wouldn't be involved in a foreign sale).
Other than that, I think your analysis of this is pretty much right
on. 

>Of course, if trade relations China break off,
>as they are threatening, we may lose more than we gain.  Or if the Chinese
>stop cooperating in advanced rocketry limitations for the Middle East,
>we could see more arms races there.  A risky play all around.

Actually, it's the hypocrisy rather than the risk that bothers me.
Bush held out for Most Favored Nation trading status for the Mainland
Chinese and supported this agreement about modern jets not being sold
to Taiwan up until he got in trouble in the polls and needed help in
Texas.  He maintained his convictions in the face of Tienanmen Square.
He maintained his convictions in the face of evidence that the
Mainland Chinese were using slave labor to produce products and were
then exporting thos products to the United States (which is against
our laws).  When did he finally lose those convinctions?  When George
Herbert Walker Bush needed some votes in Texas.

More and more, every day in every way, GHWB does things that convince
me that I will vote for a Democrat for President for the first time in
my 20 year voting history.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:46:42 GMT

In <21517@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>Andy, when I first posted the figure I was very clear on the point that
>I was very UNCLEAR what the figure meant exactly.  You seem to have a
>problem with this.  You see, this is how life works - we say things that
>are inexact, then we find the inaccuracies and we fix them.  Then we
>find the few remaining inaccuracies and fix them, too.

No, John, actually you were very CLEAR about what the figure meant.
You said that the rich paid 200 times more than the poor PER DOLLAR
EARNED.  That is quite clear; it is also quite wrong.  It seems that
how life works for you is to say something wrong, and then only if you
get caught out "find the inaccuracies and fix them".

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:56:28 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21496@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Sep9.171414.13867@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <21467@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>>Oh boy, I misquoted him.
>>
>>Yeah, you sure did.  Obviously, though, you don't think distortions
>>you create by misquoting people are serious.  Otherwise you wouldn't
>>do it so often or twist things so much.

>I think the difference between "That isn't even a sentence" and "That's
>not a complete sentence" is so small as to be absurdly irrelevant.  The
>MEANING of both is essentially the same - the subject sentence in
>question does not have all of the parts which would make it a
>grammatically correct sentence.  Whether it is "even a sentence" or "a
>complete sentence" is angels on a pinhead argumentation.

Yes, but you've already demonstrated a total disregard for the finer
points (or even the less fine points) of English usage, so why should
anyone accept John (I redefined that word) Haugh as an authority on
usage? 

>The simple fact remains, you attacked a sentence I wrote because you
>found it to be grammatically offensive.  That makes you a twit, and a
>hiplycrit.  Twit because grammar flames are off-limits on USENET, and
>a hiplycrit because you complain about what you yourself do.

But I only do it to people like you (who do it), John.  So that just
makes me a practitioner of the Golden Rule.

>Next myth.

That English is John Haugh's first language (or that he speaks it at
all). 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: JFH and Fred's Ridiculous Flaming
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:47:01 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Sep15.001153.8242@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>In article <21508@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>In article <exuptr.521.716245956@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>

		Joe, I would consider it a great honor if John
		put me in his kill file.  Congratulations!


			Bye, Judy
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:47:01 GMT
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX

In article <1992Sep10.205056.22731@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Squirming Fred) writes:
> Oh, I see.  *I* have to prove the negative that you insist it is
> unfair for you to prove (and you assume that I keep scads of old news
> around for the sheer joy of leafing through it -- I don't; I have a
> life, instead).
 
NO, you stupid idiot.  I'm asking you to prove YOUR STATEMENT.

YOU claimed that I did the first grammar flame.  I said that you started
it, and even showed where you did.  You then said that I started it even
before that.  I can't prove I started it since I would have to post every
bit of netnews I've ever posted, and even then you could claim I missed
a piece.  YOU must prove what you are asserting - that I started the
grammar flame war.  You can do this by finding a grammar flame dated
before mine.  Of course, this isn't even an impossibility, I usually
respond to grammar flames in kind.  But as I've said before, I make so
many typos that I don't do spelling flames (unless provoked), and with
the number of missed words, I don't do grammar flames either (unless
provoked).

You cannot disprove an accusation of the nature you are making.  It
can't be done.  This is why criminal law in this country gives the
benefit of the doubt to the accused and places the burden of proof on
the accuser.  If you accused me of raping some woman in North Austin
last Wednesday night around 10:30pm, I'd be hard pressed to prove that
I didn't.  I was driving home, by myself, from SCUBA diving with a
friend.  How am I going to prove that I didn't stop off in Round Rock
and rape someone?  Maybe it was that woman in Pflugerville instead.
Or maybe I raced up to Georgetown.  Surely I raped SOMEONE Wednesday
night, Fred J. McCall said so ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Insurance cards
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 23:17:12 CDT
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

> In article <86e3qB1w165w@rivdell.sccsi.com>, popec@rivdell.sccsi.com (PopeC) 
> |> Yeah, there have been people selling blank or fake proof of insurance 
> |> cards in Texas.  It is illegal and a number of people have indeed been 
> |> popped for it.
> 
> Is it illegal to sell such a card, or is it illegal to use such a card
> in order to get a driver's license or a vehicle registration?  I
> suspect the latter.

 Depends on which section of the law you look at. If you consider 
this to be a "forgery", the mere possession would be illegal. If 
you use the section that covers tampering with government 
documents (since these cards would qualify as "government 
documents") then it would be illegal to make, use, or present the 
document, but says nothing about selling them. I suspect the 
forgery law was used in these cases since that was what was done 
in the cases of forged vehicle inspection stickers. Since these 
cards have no monitary value as a document, under both sections it 
would be only a class A misdemeanor, unless you use it in an 
attempt to defraud......... but that's another story :-)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Exculpatory, a nifty little word that meant confuse
           the hell out of the jurors. -- Stephen Coonts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5008 alt.politics.clinton:4708
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:04:19 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <18jtp4INNnas@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>So your statistic about "income fairness" referred solely to the income
>tax. Since we have a threshold for income tax, if we define "poor" as
>poor enough, we can make the so-called tax fairness rate grow
>arbitrarily large. This isn't all that illuminating. Any discussion of
>tax burden should include at least FICA. But even your figures are quite
>illuminating, because you go on to post:

Surely you are not this slow.

If the top 50% of the income earned generates 97% of the income tax
revenue (and I believe that is the correct ratio), select those two
groups generates a ratio of 32.3 to 1.

Example:

Total Poor:	$1,000		$3	.3%
Total Rich:	$1,000		$97	9.7%

			9.7 / .3 = 32.3

Pick different values for "Rich" and "Poor" and those ratios will
change.  For example, pick upper and lower quarters, and leave the
two middle quartiles out.

As for Social Security, if you start including SS payments, then you
need to start including SS payouts, Welfare payouts, etc.  By the time
you do that, you will find that you have to earn roughly $27K as a
family of 4 before you even have a POSITIVE input.  This is based on
the average level of benefits for a family being about $5K per year
and the 1991 tax tables, plus 7.55% FICA.  If you make less than that,
the $5K you get from the government is greater than the taxes you put
in.  So much for the poor paying all these taxes.

As you can see, you don't have to pick the poorest of the poor before
the taxes that are paid in don't even pay their fair share of the cost
of government.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1992 08:45:36 GMT
 <Bu4LGo.G7v@rice.edu>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <Bu4LGo.G7v@rice.edu>, David E Boyes writes:

> now as it was then. After all, didn't Christ tell the disciples
> to tap the dust off their sandals and move on if their message
> wasn't being received and accepted?

Don't you understand that that was a sign of impending judgement on that city?

Jesus said:

"Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and
Gomorrah in the day of judgement, than for that city."
Matthew 10:15



                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton