HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay)
Subject: GLAAD bulletins over Internet?
Organization: International Irony League -- Death before smileys!
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:16:02 GMT

Is there any way I can get bulletins from the Gay-Lesbian
Alliance Against Defamation over Internet? I've heard they send
the boycott announcements, etc. over EMail. Who do I write to to
get on the mailing list?

To earn my keep, I'm willing to upload them to America On-Line...

Thanks,

AMS
-- 
Andrew M. Solovay       "Work is the curse of the drinking class."
solovay@netcom.com			--Wilde

#include <disclaimer.h>
From: doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: measure 9
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:34:12 GMT
Organization: Bush in 92 ? NOT!
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

gerberrl@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Richard L. Gerberding) writes:
: Measure 9 will by no means be found constitutional.  It might pass, but it  

At the state level ?  It's an amendment to the constitution, so I would
expect that "by definition" it's constitutional.

: will be overturned by the courts at the first chance at it.  Knowing this,  
: I know many people in Oregon who will be voting for it just to make a  
: point of what they believe.  People vote for what THEY believe, not by the  
: constitution.  If enough people believe this way, then the measure should  

And given that the US Supreme Court has already found anti-sodomy laws
to be constitutional (see Hardwick vs Bowers), and has become even more
conservative since then, I expect that by the time this measure would
ever get to the US S.C. then at least portions of it will be found
constitutional.
: 
: personally, I haven't filled out my ballot yet, but on the knowledge that  
: this will be overturned I am tempted to say "Si!"  There, I have fulfilled  
: my multicultural quota for the day.

Your rationale is that of a fool.
--
Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
doug@cc.ysu.edu	   doug@ysub.bitnet	<internet>!cc.ysu.edu!doug
Family Values: the sexist, racist, homophobic, classist, "Christian" values
of the 50's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis)
Subject: Re: Hospital Study Suggests Gays Are Very Unlikely To Be Molesters
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:59:35 GMT

>In a previous article, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) wrote:
>> 
>>DENVER (AP)---A child is 100 times more likely to be molested by a
>>family member than a homosexual, a new study shows.

In article <2OCT92.13392908@enh.nist.gov> aberson@enh.nist.gov writes:
>
>Well, obviously a homosexual cannot be a family member.

*ponder*  

This is complicated.  

Drieux, can you help me parse this?

-sz
From: ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: When is Larry King Live repeated?  (HURRY!)
Keywords: Marrou on CNN
Date: 13 Oct 92 03:13:09 GMT
Distribution: usa

I caught the tail end of Larry King Live with Andre Marrou as the
guest, and I'd like to see the rest of the program.  I know that
L.K. Live repeats, but I can't find it in the TV Guide.  Does anyone
know when this episode will be on again?

					Thanks in advance,

					Matt Harrington
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:38:31 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <parvin1.718491105@husc11>, parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
> >> So, if the start-up costs are such that competition won't occur, and if
> >> the entrenched company is making relatively enormous profits, I don't
> >> see any moral problem with regulation or subsidized entrance for competition.
> 
> >Let me see if I can paraphrase this.  If market conditions are such that
> >any person would be an idiot to voluntarily invest in a competing start-up, 
> >you would be in favor of the government forcing all of the citizens to make 
> >exactly this investment.  Forgive me if I admit that I don't understand this.
> 
> You understand it perfectly.  People not affected by the monopoly will
> be losing out a little.  So yes,
> there will be some redistribution (gasp!) occuring.  So if you're against
> all redistribution as a matter of principle, nothing I say can convince
> you. 

It seems that all you have done is, through taxation, spread the loss
over a large number of people, including a number of people who do not 
ever partake of the good or service that they are subsidizing.  So those
who partake of the product pay more than the government-proposed market
price of it (when you add in their taxes), but less than the free-market
price; and the latter difference is covered by payments from taxpayers
who don't use the product at all, and so receive nothing for their taxes.

> Now, I don't know how to do this in general, and maybe
> human nature makes it impossible.  But if we can examine small segments
> and particular conditions of the market where such programs look
> exceedingly promising, like the example given in my post, perhaps we can
> make things a little better for the people at large.

This is all reminiscent of the joke in which the supermarket manager
hires a consultant to tell him how to improve his business.  The consultant
comes back after a week or so with a puzzled expression on his face.
"I don't understand how you can even manage to stay in business," he reports.
"Your prices are such that you're losing a penny and a half on every item
you sell!"  The grocer snaps, "You have a nerve misrepresenting yourself
as an expert.  It's obvious you don't know the first thing about retailing.
The principle at work here is that we make it all up in volume!"
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: bomgard@moose.cs.indiana.edu (Tim Bomgardner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:48:25 GMT
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington

In article <parvin1.718922629@husc11> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
 

}10 +
}   |\
} 8 + \
}   |  \
} 6 +---A
}   |   |\
} 4 +   | \
}   |   |  \
} 2 +---|---B-- cost of manufacture
}   |   |   |\
}   |   |   |\
} 0 +-+-+-+-+-+
}   0 2 4 6 8 10

} [discussion of profit when startup company is subsidized.  Firm A is the
   "established player", Firm B the startup.  Point A is what Firm A is
   currently charging, Point B is the "break even" point.  At least,
   that's my interpretation.]

}No; these are the marginal costs that you are looking at.  It's quite possible
}that there is no profit to be made between A and B when the start-up costs
}are taken into account.  Firm A is not concerned with these costs.  Any
}firm wishing to compete is.  Your diagram ignores the cost of entry.

IF I understand what you're saying, then this is one of the most absurd
economic statements I've ever heard.  Firm A not concerned??  Au contraire.
Firm A has already paid the startup costs and is now attempting to
amortize that expense in the face of advice from economic wunderkinds
like you who've decided that "the people" have a "right" to purchase
goods and services in a market twisted into whatever you've abritrarily
determined is "fair and competitive."

My brother founded and operated a business in the state of Indiana, but
the state government decided that there was insufficient competition, so
it subsidized the startup of other companies.  Since the other companies
had no bank loans or other startup costs to amortize, they easily underbid
my brother and quickly put him out of business.  I realize this doesn't
prove anything, but it's interesting to note that the startups are now
charging more than my brother did. 

}   ....  Subsidizing start-up costs can
}allow both firms to operate profitably below this barrier C.
}And this cost is more than compensated for in consumer savings.

And how was my brother compensated?  Or is he one of the fortunate ones
that get to make a sacrifice for the greater consumer good?

Tim Bomgardner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: gliesche@lonestar.utsa.edu (Jules D. Gliesche)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The 'right' to cable
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:58:58 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

Ray Cote rightly asks why people just don't cancel their cable if it's
too expensive. I offer the following tongue in cheek reply:

People have a right to cable. It adds to their lives and keeps them in
touch with the world. Since so many people would be alienated from American
society if they didn't have cable, it is necessary to make it affordable so
that all will have access to it. This is the America of the 1990's - if
people have a need for something, the avenging angel of government is
supposed to supply it or make sure it doesn't cost too much. Government
exists to solve our problems, hold our hands, and wipe our noses. I'm
Bill Clinton/George Bush/Ross Perot, and I want your vote!

gag, cough, wheeze, choke, AAAAAAAAAAAK!

Hmmm....that feels better.....:-)

 _______________________________________________________
 |     "I love my country, but I fear my government"     |
 | Marrou / Lord '92 - VOTE LIBERTARIAN - 1-800-682-1776 |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Andy Lipscomb)
Subject: Lib's in Nashville
Organization: Vanderbilt University 
Distribution: USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:47:20 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

Does anyone have a phone # for Marrou's Nashville campaign folks?  Here at
Vandy on Thursday (15 October) they're having a "debate" among local Bush, 
Clinton, and Perot campaign folks, and I'd like to try to get a Marrou
person in as well.


Andy Lipscomb
lipscoja@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Bitnet: lipscoja@vuctrvax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Subject: Re: Utopia is not an option
Organization: The Lab Rats
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:31:44 GMT

In article <11219@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu> bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:

}Why is it accepted to argue that Libertarians can't solve:
}    a) the drug problem
}    b) the crime problem
}    c) the economic problems
}    d) the education problem
}    etc. etc. etc.

}when the other political powers have had numerous years to work and haven't
}even begun to solve these same problems??

because the incumbent parties, and especially their supporters in the
media (who create a large portion of what most people call `reality')
are doing everything in their power to divert your attention away from
the fact that they CAUSED those problems.

-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences
Libertarian candidate for Delaware House of Representatives, 23rd District

"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 22:01:19 GMT


In article <parvin1.718571053@husc11>, parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu writes:

> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
> 
> 
> >If it is actually possible for the introduced competition to make
> >money (which is the same thing as saying that the costs to the
> >taxpayers is nill) then there is no reason to say that private
> >investors wouldn't be encouraged by the market to start it up.
> >And start-up costs are no less significant when burdening the
> >taxpayer as when burdening investors.
> 
> They certainly are less significant.  The private corporation is concerned
> only with net profit.  The consumers are also concerned with the actual
> prices.  So if subsidizing the start-up costs provides an opportunity
> for a firm to profitably enter into competition and bring down the price
> level, the net gain to consumers in paying lower prices can easily outweigh
> the one-shot startup cost.  Of course, the original monopoly loses some of
> its margin, but the consumers gain.  [...]

Maybe if I say it a fourth time you'll get it.  Either consumers value a
good more than production costs (including startup costs appropriately
distributed over time) or they don't.  Assuming consumers do value a
good, the price for that good always lies somewhere between what the
market is willing to pay, and what producers need to pay for production.
The difference between the price and the production costs is the
producer's profit.  The difference between the price and what consumers
are willing to pay is the consumers' subjective profit.

Now, either there is room between the price and the production costs
(including startup costs) to allow for increased production, or there
isn't.  Another way of saying *exactly* the same thing is that either
there is profit to be made in increased production or there isn't.
Profit and value to consumers are inextricably linked and you cannot
point at one and ignore the other at your convenience.  The other point
is that it is irrelevant whether those startup costs come from investors
or from taxpayers.  It may be more evenly distributed when shifted to the
taxpayers, but it is no less of a cost!

One more time in your terminology:  If it is necessary to subsidize a
producer in order to provide an opportunity for that producer to enter
into competition, then the cost to taxpayers of subsidization will
*always* outweigh the benefit to consumers afforded by lower prices.

thant
From: lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Crack Babies
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:34:50 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.  Fremont, California
Originator: lando@ss2035


During the "debate" on Sunday night, all the candidates present stated
categorically that they were in favor of the continued criminalization of
drugs.

Both Bush and Clinton made references to babies crippled because of their
mothers were addicted to cocaine.   I understand the Libertarian position
on the individual's use of narcotics, but would you Libertarians consider
a mother's actions as criminal negligence if she gave birth to baby
damaged by drugs?





-- 
"Read my lips, 'No more statism.'"  - George Bush, NOT!
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Prominent Libertarians (was Re: An answer to one of David Sill's)
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:35:28
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
	<1992Oct13.172855.29723@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sartre.caisr.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu's message of Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:28:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.172855.29723@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
>Dave Sill asks:
>>Name some prominent Libertarians--CEO's, actors, writers, etc.

>Comedian Tommy Chong (of Cheech and Chong fame) endorsed Brian Ryman, 
>Libertarian candidate for Ohio Legislature (27th district)

>Frank Zappa tried to get the LP Presidential nomination in '88 if I remember 
>correctly.

>Mojo Nixon ("Elvis is everywhere! Elvis is everything!") is reputed to be a 
>Libertarian

According to Libernet, Dave Barry recently joined the Libertarian Party.

Also, P. J. O'Rourke's views (as described in _Parliament_of_Whores_)
seem quite libertarian, although I believe he's registered as a
Republican.

Alan Greenspan used to be an Objectivist, though I have no idea what
his current views are...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning)
Subject: Re: You can't, and shouldn't TRY, to control the economy.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:34:02 GMT

If economists really understood the economy, they would all be billionaires
instead of academicians and staff economists.

The original point of this thread was that the economy is incomparably
more complex than the weather, that we know the limits to the prediction
of the weather (chaos theory provides them), and that therefore we
can't predict the economy.

Now, if we can't predict the economy, how the hell are we going to
regulate it?

Several postings have made the point that we can, indeed, control such
fundamentals as the money supply. The record is rather mixed on our
actual ability. Germany isn't even doing so well of late.

Somebody better have more facts than have been presented so far ..

Lew

-- 
Lew Glendenning		rlglende@netcom.com
"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points."	Nils Bohr (or somebody like that).
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:742 alt.society.anarchy:416
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Last call for East Lansing Bus!
Followup-To: alt.politics.marrou
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: oh
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:38:15 GMT

The Libertarian Party of Ohio is still planning on providing free 
transportation to those wishing to protest Andre Marrou's exclusion
from the debate at MSU in East Lansing, Michigan.  The bus (or possibly
several large vans instead) will leave Columbus at around 2 pm on Monday 
and stop in Toledo and possibly Ann Arbor on the way up to East Lansing.

Anyone in those cities (or other cities on the way) wishing to go should
email me ASAP!  This is your last chance.

Steve Conley
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:910 alt.politics.marrou:1657
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Keywords: abortion,platform
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:44:55 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct14.201027.26476@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:

>people who choose not to drive.  People take precautions against pregnancy
>but sometimes those precautions are not sufficient.  In those cases, an
>abortion may be chosen.  Globs of protoplasm don't have rights!

Anybody who does not know that all forms of contraceptives are not fool
proof has not been listening.  The Pro-choice people have been using it
as one of their big arguments in favor of abortion for years.

If you choose to have sex, and you choose to use protection that you know
to have a certain failure rate, then you have voluntarily choosed to
accept the consequences of your action.

Globs of protoplasm don't have rights, but babies do.

By the crudest of definitions, you and I are nothing but globs of
protoplasm as well.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 7 Oct 1992 19:36:55 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <7054@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <parvin1.718418434@husc11>, parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
>> So, if the start-up costs are such that competition won't occur, and if
>> the entrenched company is making relatively enormous profits, I don't
>> see any moral problem with regulation or subsidized entrance for competition.
>
>Let me see if I can paraphrase this.  If market conditions are such that
>any person would be an idiot to voluntarily invest in a competing start-up, 
>you would be in favor of the government forcing all of the citizens to make 
>exactly this investment.  Forgive me if I admit that I don't understand this.

You don't understand it because you are not counting the value to society
of being able to purchase product at a lower, competitive price.  Individual
investors can only count the reduced profit after competition minus the
startup costs.  Society as a whole can count as profit the reduction in price
times the quantity purchased by society minus the startup costs. 

These two different equations (doubtless simpler than they should be) show
that economic decisions by society's benefit can sensibly contradict the
"logic" of the market.

Mike Huben

Strephon: "Have you the heart to apply the prosaic rules of evidence to a
	   case brimming with such poetical emotion?"
Chancellor: "Distinctly."
	From "Iolanthe", by Gilbert and Sullivan.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: zeller <zeller@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: bumper stickers?
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:41:05 GMT

Does anyone out there know where I can get some good bumper stickers or other
propaganda-related stuff?  I live in Milwaukee.

	Thanks.
	Ben Zeller     zeller@mixcom.com
-- 
Ben Zeller    zeller@mixcom.com
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: St. Louis Demonstration
Date: 12 Oct 1992 06:44:48 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I caught the St. Louis demonstration on CNN Headline News.  Looks
like a good crowd, and it got national coverage...the announcer
even gave a brief but correct of the Libertarian position, and
wonder of wonders pronounced Marrou's name correctly.

Good job.  Here's hoping we do as well at the other sites.
 
And I wish I could have been there!
From: goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: New Alliance Party
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:30:50 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

With all the focus on the Bush/Clinton/Perot/Marrou on Usenet, I was wondering
if anyone had any position papers, speeches, etc on Lenora Fulani and the New
Alliance Party. If so, could these things be added to the documents in the
campaign.92 directory on nptn.org?
--Mitch
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: marrou@cs.ucf.edu (Lance R. Marrou)
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:28:49 GMT

stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher) writes:
>...(For any Democrats out
>there, I'll warn that more math's ahead, so press <space> now.)

I'll admit, Jack, that your theorem is intriguing; however, 
the above statement is rather uncalled for, don't you think?

>Clearly, I should vote for Marrou.
Hmmmm...interesting conclusion.  ;>

BTW, anyone privy to Andre V. Marrou's schedule for the next month?

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Lance R. Marrou
   Work   - Marrou@IST.UCF.edu
   School - Marrou@Eola.cs.UCF.edu