HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Date: 15 Oct 1992 21:51:34 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <1992Oct15.031126.17194@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>    >Absolutely not. First, the net is not a good sample. Your
>    >friends are not a good sample. Neither are mine. ...

>It's not a good sample with respect to actual or perceived antihomosexual
>sentiment? Why not?

Because you choose your friends, and I choose mine.  (Why are you
asking this question?  Is this a debating trick, or do you really not
know?)  For instance, the percentage of PhD's in my circle of friends
is way out of whack, as is the average/median income and level of
education of my friends and acquaintances.

The net is a bad sample, because (generally speaking) people posting
to the net have some education, and a job where they have both access
to the net and the freedom to post here.  Auto mechanics, janitors,
and plumbers are probably under-represented.  So are doctors and
dentists.

>Newsweeks did a large section of a recent issue on homosexuality, and
>commissioned a bunch of polls from poll companies. Certainly what they
>did was far more accurate than the individual stories related on the net.

"Better than the net" can still be very very bad.

>If what Newsweek did was not so hot, then just what is better as an
>autoritative source???

Note that you are assuming that there exists a sufficiently
authoritative source for this sort of information.  It's always
possible that there is no good information to be had.  I'm quite
comfortable with this, since I don't see any special need to justify
discrimination.  (I suspect that many people discriminate merely
because they have been fed bad "facts" like those Clayton posted to
the net).

However, I think you can generally find better information in The
Economist (they take special pride in being reliable, I think), and I
am told that the fact-checkers for The New Yorker are second-to-none
(how this may change under Tina Brown remains to be seen) (Note that
checking facts is not the same as presenting all the facts.)  The Wall
Street Journal is not a bad source of information, provided that you
steer clear of the editorial page, and especially if it concerns
financial matters.  The New York Times is a better newspaper than the
local ones, though I suspect it may have some bias (though I think the
WSJ gives the left somewhat better representation on its editorial
pages).

My point, again: Neither you nor Clayton has presented good
statistical information.  Your samples are bad, and your use of
labelling is also bad.  There's no special need to present good
numbers refuting your claims, because you've presented no compelling
evidence.  Your question about samples is particularly telling -- if
you aren't familiar with the sources of bias in samples, you've got
little business making statistically based claims.

David Chase
Sun
From: bkorb@starbase.Convergent.Com (Bruce Korb)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Mortgage nightmare
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:58:12 GMT
Reply-To: bkorb@convergent.com
Distribution: ca
Organization: Unisys Open Systems Group, San Jose

In article <1992Oct7.232401.22726@netcom.com>, mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:

|> Believe it or not, the industry is pretty well-regulated.  The problem
|> is that it's very open to unqualified people.  In other words, the
|> system allows malpractice to occur but will punish it.

Yes, it is very well regulated, and that is the problem.  There are a
dozen people in line with their hands out grabbing several hundred to
several thousand dollars just to get your loan.  And, if someone claims
you owe them money, the escrow officer will ensure that they are paid,
whether the amount is owed or not (as in my case).  Who is going to
stop a $200,000 mortage over a $500.00 issue?  Now I have to sue them!
It is true that many of the costs are legitimate.  But tell me why,
for example, it is worth $1,000 for title insurance 6 months after the
last policy was issued?  It is a scam.

Yes, it is well regulated, and all designed to screw the borrower.  :-(

-- 
   Bruce Korb  (408) 456-5507
   Convergent Technologies, aka Unisys, aka Sperry Univac, aka Burroughs
From: walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Support for Clayton's Crusade?
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:11:06 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <195940@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>, by pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew):

> About two months ago, I first started asking people to respond to me via
> e-mail telling me what they thought of Mr. Cramer's crusade.  I specifically
> wanted to find out if anyone supported even a small part of his agenda.  I've
> renewed the request for e-mail several times since then.  The result?  Not
> one person has come forward, even anonymously, to say that they support
> Mr. Cramer's efforts.

Some of us don't feel compelled to respond every time
that somebody whines.  I think that Clayton's presence
on the net is highly beneficial because he causes tough
issues to be discussed in depth.  Some people feel
threatened by him when they realize that their weak
beliefs cannot withstand his strong challenges.

> Let me ask this one more time:
> Is there anyone reading this newsgroup who supports Mr. Cramer's crusade?

"Crusade" is an interesting word choice.  Many of us do
have beliefs similar to Clayton's, if that is what you
mean.

> Is there anyone who agrees with any of his positions on homosexuality?

I do not entirely agree with him, but that does not
keep me from discussing these issues with him in a
rational manner.

> Is there anyone who believes that he has established a credible link between
> homosexuality and child molestation?

Statistically, it appears that there is a little bit
of a correlation, but we disagree on issues of causality.

> Is there anyone who believes that this crusade is being conducted in an
> appropriate manner or in the appropriate newsgroups?

Sure, why not?  And if it is not, then why are you
carrying it on here?

> Please send me e-mail at the address below whether you agree or not.  I
> absolutely guarantee anonymity within the best of my ability.  I'll simply
> read the message and delete it immediately.  I'm not going to write down
> anyone's name or e-mail address and will not even respond to the message.

What is all of this about?  Like Clayton, I am not ashamed
of my beliefs or opinions.  If, through the process of
debate, you can show me that some of my opinions are wrong,
I will learn (as I already have on the net), and those
opinions will evolve.  I strongly admired Brian Kane when
he publicly adopted a more libertarian ethic.  Why does
this frighten you so?
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KC6RKZ@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:33:54 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <athos-081092210206@kip2-37.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>In article <39197@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
>wrote:
>
>> If he was truly neutral on the school prayer issue - no promotion
>> or restraint of silent prayer by anyone in school - then this
>> would be a non-existant topic, because this is currently the way 
>> things are now. Nobody is stopping anyone,anywhere from silently praying
>> during school.
>
>It's not that big of an issue.  In fact, I think YOU brought it up.  It was
>one small point out of many.


In article <athos-031092151525@kip2-5.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
What a maroon! In point of fact, Ricky, it was you who brought up the
subject, as evidenced by the following paper trail:

>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.


>
>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?

More "Republican" style argument:

>The fact that you would try to equate a Jewish man with a Nazi is the
>sickest remark I could imagine.  You really should be ashamed of yourself.

Grow up Ricky. I really didn't know, nor do I care, if Herschensohn is Jewish
or not. I judge a person by their actions, not by what religion they
happen to be a member of. I recognize that Jews are just like every
other culturally defined group (including my own), and like all other groups, 
contain their fair share of fascists, anarchists, and outright loons.
As a public figure (self-imposed), Herschensohn can be judged by whatever
standard _I_ feel is appropriate, including calling him as I see him.


-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Death with Dignity Act
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:14:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.203556.14083@jack.sns.com> jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim Best) writes:
>                              KNOW THE FACTS
>                                   ABOUT
>                   CALIFORNIA'S "DEATH WITH DIGNITY ACT"
>===========================================================================
>
>        +------------------------------------------------------+
>        | Should this initiative pass, California would be the |
>        | first governmental unit in the history of humankind  |
>        | to legalize the deliberate killing of patients by    |
>        | physicians.                                          |
>        +------------------------------------------------------+

Uhhh, I thought that the Netherlands had legalized doctor assisted
suicide.  Am I mistaken ?

>Phrases such as
>"mercy killing," "rational suicide" and "aid in dying" or "death with
>dignity" should not be allowed to obscure the fact that euthanasia is
>killing an innocent human being. It is morally wrong. 

In your opinion this is immoral.  I don't have a moral problem with
people who are hopelessly ill deciding that they don't want to go
on.  In many ways, I think that is immoral to prevent people from
making their own decision in such an important area.  I find it
ironic that we don't allow people the same kind of mercy we show
our pets.

>A wide range of options are available for the
>treatment of pain. Aggressive, in-depth education of health care
>professionals regarding these is essential. 


Of course, your own statement indicates that such options, though
available, aren't always utilized.  Futher, I feel that a person
should be able to choose if they want to spend the remainder of
their days in a drug-induced fog.

>        O  This  bill does not have any effective  safeguards  to
>        prevent serious abuses.

I don't know about this.  As far as I can see, this may be the one
area where legitimate concerns are raised.  I will have to read the
initiaitive.

>        O  It  allows  for  the   killing  of  patients  who  are
>        "competent"  to  make a decision, but does not require  a
>        psychological  evaluation of the patients who may only be
>        depressed  and  ,  if given time,  would  withdraw  their
>        request for euthanasia.

Of course they're depressed !!!  I'd be depressed too if I had a
terminal illness.  

>        O  It can not be contained.  It will lead to  involuntary
>        euthanasia  of  people  who  are  disabled,  elderly,  or
>        mentally ill.

This is simply a slippery-slope argument.  What evidence do you
have that this will be the case.  I don't think that a law legalizing
euthenasia will suddenly mean that we will be putting paraplegics
to death.

Guido
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 11 Oct 92 18:44:56 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <athos-081092090350@kip2-30.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>In article <39144@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
>> Crap. Crap,crap,crap,crap,crap. Herr Brucie, like the rest of the rabble-
>> rousing bible-thumping religious right, er, Republican Party, has not been
>> beating on this issue because people are being banned from silent prayer
>> in school. They want vocalized, led, religious periods, and the Ten
>> Commandments hanging from the walls. You trying to act like this isn't
>> the case when everyone knows it to be so is laughable.
>
>Prove that this is what Bruce Herschensohn wants.  I dare you.

Hey Ricky, here you go -

San Diego Union, Sunday, October 12,1992 Page C-4
This paper is considered to be one of the most conservative major
papers in the state.

Boxer vs Hershensohn on Education

Boxer - Supprt's Bill Clinton's plan for universal college education, with
federal loans repayable by public service. Would increase Head Start
funding. Opposes prayer in schools and voucher programs.

Herschensohn - Would abolish the Department of Education and disburse
its $30 billion budget among the states. FAVORS ORGANIZED PRAYER IN
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, merit pay and competency testing for teachers, and
a voucher plan that would give an extra $900 to disadvantaged kids.

QED.

-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8624 ba.politics:6041
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:12:40 GMT
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA

In article <1992Oct11.181606.23574@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> You don't know. Thanks for your honesty.
> 
> I rely on the recent Newsweek magazine articles on homosexuality,
> which include a nice set of polls on peoples attitudes on homosexuality.

  Um Phil, what do people's attitudes toward homosexuality have to 
do with *anything*. People's bigotry is not a validation of anything.
I have little doubt if we interchanged the word "Italian" for "homosexual"
you'd be the first to howl in protest that this is no voting matter.

> 
> But judging from the cries of discrimination from many homosexual
> posters on the net, surely you assert that most people don't like
> homoseuality?

  Stop trying to co-opt the rest of the heterosexuals of the world
into your bigotry. That Phil Ronzone is a bigot does not imply that
the world is or should be bigoted.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: School Vouchers: Constitutionality?
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:00:34 GMT
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <23030@galaxy.ucr.edu>
 by judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson):

: It would seem to me that if school vouchers were legal, then within a year
: there would be a Supreme Court case in the works regarding its
: constitutionality.

This may be true.  I hope that a way can be found to skirt this issue,
eg, having non-denominational private schools, and parochial schools
which somehow, in a "politically correct" manner, separate religious
teaching from the 3 R's.

: Furthermore, the idea of "school vouchers" is utterly ridiculous.

Why?

: If it
: is proposed because it will give the chance for parents to send their
: children to good schools, then doesn't this send a message that our
: public school system is not adequate?

Earth to Michael, Earth to Michael, come in please ... >B-{)

That is EXACTLY the message being sent.

: Instead of worrying about giving
: parents school vouchers, why doesn't the government put that money into
: the public school system.

Earth to Michael, Earth to Michael, come in please ... >B-{)

The California Voucher initiative gives HALF the money normally put into
a public institution to follow the kid, no matter which school s/he
attends.  This could be a private school, or it could simply be a better
public school.

Ie, if the kid goes to the public school, the public school is paid for
as usual ... $5200/kid was the last estimate I've heard.  If the school
down the street sucks, the kid is allowed to go to a better one.  But if 
the kid goes to a private school, only half of that, $2600, goes to the
private school.  Each kid which leaves the public school system will
save taxpayers $2600.

The government has been throwing money at the public schools for
decades, only to watch them get worse.  It's time to try something
else.

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it."    -- Donald Knuth
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Politicians
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:55:16 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

I was listening to an interview with George Will the other day and he made
an interesting point about politicians.  I'm paraphrasing, so I hope I get
it right.  He said that some people try to be President/Senator/etc. to *do*
something, while others try to be President/Senator/etc. to *be* something.

Specifically, he was talking about the difference between Reagan and Bush.
He claimed that Reagan belonged to the first group, while Bush belongs to
the second.  This is the reason, so he claims, that he was supportive of
Reagan and down on Bush.

It's an interesting point and it occurs to me that many of our politicians
share this failing.  For example, I would place both Bush and Clinton in
the second category.  Perot, I'm not sure about.

But what about our Senatorial and Congressional races?  Where would you
put the various candidates?

Comments?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:07:09 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <39220@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
wrote:

> >It's not that big of an issue.  In fact, I think YOU brought it up.  It was
> >one small point out of many.
> 
> 
> In article <athos-031092151525@kip2-5.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
> What a maroon! In point of fact, Ricky, it was you who brought up the
> subject, as evidenced by the following paper trail:
> 
> >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.
> 

I don't think that the above is from the same article as the below.  So,
since you're the great archivist, you tell me to what I was responding
below:
 
> >
> >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?

> >The fact that you would try to equate a Jewish man with a Nazi is the
> >sickest remark I could imagine.  You really should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Grow up Ricky. I really didn't know, nor do I care, if Herschensohn is Jewish
> or not. I judge a person by their actions, not by what religion they
> happen to be a member of. I recognize that Jews are just like every
> other culturally defined group (including my own), and like all other groups, 
> contain their fair share of fascists, anarchists, and outright loons.
> As a public figure (self-imposed), Herschensohn can be judged by whatever
> standard _I_ feel is appropriate, including calling him as I see him.

Fine, you're a moron.  I do, after all, call them as I see them.  The term
"Nazi" is a VERY hostile word.  

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 10 Oct 92 14:53:30 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <athos-091092232426@kip2-14.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>I can state with all honesty that I never used the word Nazi except when
>quoting you.

Honest? You? What a laugh! So far you've lied in at least two posts.
In yet another example of Ricky failing to realize that he is in
fact leaving "paper" trail droppings which may come back to haunt him:

>From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
>Newsgroups: ca.politics
>Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
>Message-ID: <athos-081092210206@kip2-37.apple.com>
>Date: 9 Oct 92 04:02:16 GMT
>Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

>In article <39197@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
>wrote:
>> The fact that "school prayer" is an issue at all says that proponents 
>> (including Herr Bruce) really want more than what you are claiming. QED.

>The fact that you would try to equate a Jewish man with a Nazi is the
>sickest remark I could imagine.  You really should be ashamed of yourself.

Here is a case where you used the word "Nazi" without quoting me.

Now Ricky: If you can find a post in which I refer to Herschensohn
as a "Nazi", please feel free to post it, and I will apologize.
In the meantime, you are a liar, and a bad liar at that. 

Feel free to dig yourself in deeper.







-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
Newsgroups: ca.politics