HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:16:15 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Dec19.232048.28208@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1gvsreINNiv7@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
>    >In article <1992Dec19.120605.3981@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
>    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>Eh? You so cute for a dumb boy, mahhnnn ... me and me friends,
>we jez giggles and giggles ...
>
 Yes I too laugh a lot at your narrow and uninformed positions that
you take. Plus your cutesy little writings are somewhat entertaining
but wearing thin.
 

>1. Per capita homicide has risen in good correlation with the decline
>   of people excuted.

Yes- and see below.  There may be a correlation but it does not demostrate
cause and effect relationships as to the direction.

>
>2. Florida, once knownn as the serial killer state, has had very little
>   in the way of major cases since they fried Ted Bundy. Well, yeah,
>   they do have Wormos, but  hey, she's just an "EEO-type" case.

Serial murder is not that common- this could be a statistical blip.
It fact, serial murder may not have any statistical meaning in
relationship to general murders.  If someone is insane and decides
to kill a string of people, then I don't think they sit around thinking
about their execution- of course some of them do, becuase that is
the extent of their insanity.

Murder is on the rise in general, violent crime is on the rise in
general.  One murders or doesn't, and it is not based on thinking,
hmmm- I better not kill this person becuase they might execute me.

>

That is an invalid deductive argument.  You cannot prove the relationship
between executions of murders and decline in murders, or vica-versa.  Or
maybe your informed sources... WSJ and SJMN know more than most researchers.

>They, I've paid attention to you. That'll make you feel better. Now, post
>some more -- we like the entertainment value.
>
>

Thank you Thank you- you have made my day.  Yes I will post more and
keep you going.  I likewise for sure, becuase you allow me to hone
my abilities at pointing out misinformed people and their badly
created arguments.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Recall California Governor Pete Wilson!
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:07:31 GMT
Followup-To: poster

In article <1992Dec14.212502.17121@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <1992Dec11.165622.29264@leland.Stanford.EDU> dcrocker@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Crocker) writes:
> >Yes, the Legislature -- especially its "leadership" -- deserves to be held
> >accountable also, but one thing at a time.  The Governor played the worst
> >sort of cynical politics, at the expense of jobs and aid for the
> >neediest folk, so he is the most appropriate _first_ target.
> 
> Yeah right.  You folks are going to go after the legislature next.
> Right.

I don't know about you, but my state legislator isn't one of the
'leaders'.  I don't *get* a direct vote on any of 'em.  (I did,
however, vote against the incumbents from my district in any case....)

> It's much easier/cheaper to force all of the legislative leadership
> into a recall than it is to recall the governor.  Yet, we see NOTHING
> along those lines.

Wrong.  It's easier to go after the governor.  To get the 'legislative
leaders' you've got to mount *several* recall efforts instead of a
single, statewide, effort.  What's more...there's is--apparently--a
state law that you can't recall someone within 6 months of an election
they're running in.  That protected W. Brown last summer and it
protects him now.  given the 2 year Assembly terms, Assemblymen are
'untouchable' fully 1/2 of the time.  

> The Democrats used to be somewhat more upfront than they are now.

I know a few Republican who are pretty annoyed, too.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: "homophobic suspects outrage net"
Date: 15 Dec 92 05:35:17 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Dec14.172050.4841@carlyle.com> marc@carlyle.com (Marc Salomon) writes:
    >And look what happened. Those who had bought into the
    >California Dream early enough (Hmmm, what color were most of
    >the land/home owners in mid- 1970's California?) then they
    >were protected. Among others, this screws the people who came
    >to CA later, and those who are unfortunate to be born in CA
    >and not have well-off parents.
    >
    >In short, prop 13 was an act of apartheid against the
    >increasing number of non-whites moving to CA as well as an
    >act of intergenerational intellectual genocide against the
    >future generations; denying them access to health care or an
    >education worth a shit. I work in San Mateo county, where
    >these WWII generation folks own houses in the mid 6 figures
    >and pay a penance in property tax. Not only has this
    >generation made a complete mess of the economy, but their
    >attitude is, in one sentence: "I got mine, now fuck you."

Somewhat close -- it's been the primary Ecofascist/NoGrowth/Luddites
that have raised the housing cost so high in California.

For example, in the 70 unit "luxury yuppie condo" that I live in,
two units were "forced" to be sold way way below cost as "low cost"
housing to get the permits to be built. And then we had to pay,
as part of the first-time purchase price, $17,000 to FULLY cover
the cost of the unit's sewer hook up AND bond retirement.

Although funny, I ALSO have to pay for that AGAIN in my property taxes.

Plus, an unused and wasted interior courtyard had to be provided
to meet the "open space" requirements -- thus spreading the overall
cost over a much smaller number of units and costing us more.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7708 soc.motss:52305
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics,soc.motss
Subject: Re: "HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Date: 15 Dec 1992 00:18:39 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Dec9.025446.14181@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>Mr. D. Owen Rowley, don't be so insensitive! You can call us hetereosexual,
>ans "we" can accept "straight" (as in undeviated, true), but, I find, and
>so do many others, "Strayt" to be derogative.
>
>Please don't use it.
>
>-- 

This is amazing- now you want to try and have it both ways.  First you toss
about your degrading comments and namecallings then, tell Mr. Rowley he should
not use 'Strayt' because it is derogative.  I don't undrestand... where are the
smiley faces, is this really satire in disguise.

So to apply your own reasoning he can call anybody what he wants, right?


Newsgroups: ba.politics,bit.listserv.politics,k12.ed.soc-studies
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Rape After Rape After Rape
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:06:02 GMT

In article <2103.2b2f91d7@mbcl.rutgers.edu> imran@mbcl.rutgers.edu writes:
    >Hello,
    >
    >What follows is an article from the New York Times. Why am I
    >posting it here? I feel that some of the issues pertain to at
    >least some of the threads I have seen in this group (and the
    >other groups that I am posting to). The article is about the
    >calculated destruction of the Bosnian Muslims. The article
    >contains extremely graphic descriptions of brutality,
    >torture, and rape.
    >
    >Rape After Rape After Rape
    >
    >ZAGREB, Croatia. What is happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina
    >to Muslim and Croatian women seems unprecedented in the
    >history of war crimes. Women are raped by Serbian soldiers in
    >an organized and systematic way, as a planned crime to
    >destroy a whole Muslim population, to destroy a society's
    >cultural, traditional and religious integrity.

I take exception to the hyperbole of "unprecented in the history of
war crimes".

The fall of Constantinople alone resulted in several hundreds of thousands
women raped and placed into slavery. A reading of the Bible alone
shows that what is happening now has plenty of precedent. In our
century alone, we have Hitler, Stalin, the Armenian genocide by
the Turks.

In short, evil as usual.

In comparison with history of the region for the last 1,000+ years, the
evil being done today is actually on the milder side.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7750 ca.politics:10367
From: bruce@godzilla.swdc.stratus.com (Bruce Overby)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:32:14 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., San Jose, CA

In article <1992Dec10.213635.28826@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>bruce@godzilla.swdc.stratus.com (Bruce Overby) writes:
[in response to Clayton's anecdotes about successful
confrontations with carjackers]:
>>
>>Wonderful graphic violence, Clayton. Is this alt.movies.clint?
>>[...]
>>
>>Is Rambo hysteria all you can come up with?
>
>While I disagree completely with Clayton on, er,  the other subject he's
>kept going in this group for over a year now, I feel that he's right on
>the money in this case.
>

Right on the money about what? Correct me if I'm misrepresenting
here, but you, in reading Clayton's post, understood that his
points were:

- Current laws on firearm possession are too restrictive.
- Heroes who save the lives of carjacking victims reduce crime.
- An older victim who repelled younger criminals should be applauded.

And yet, Clayton said *nothing* about firearm laws, *nothing* about
the life that was saved in San Diego, *nothing* about applauding
the single older victim. Instead, he recounted the stories in a
sensationalist manner, with no interpretive comments (other than
his usual swipe at the [liberal] media), and left it to the reader
to join in the hysteria. Such a posting might encourage someone
who is *not* qualified to repel a carjacker to attempt to do so,
which could get someone hurt.

>   don "WHAT did i just say?" baldwin

I've always felt you were one of the more openminded posters to
the group, Mr. Baldwin. This merely confirms that.

-------------------------------------------------
Bruce Overby
Stratus Computer, Inc.
San Jose, CA


"Get at dem beans!"  -- Hoss Cartwright

My opinions may not reflect those of my employer.
--------------------------------------------------
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Health insurance stuff
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:35:42 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <lit62qINN2ev@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.054208.6527@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>Oh yes it is. At two packs a day of cigarettes, that about
    >>enough to pay for Kaiser.
    >>
    >Show your work, please. I haven't got a clue what cigarettes
    >cost, but I thought Kaiser would be in the neighborhood of
    >$200/month for an adult.

The last time I was a contractor, I was offered Kaiser via a contracting
agency at a cost to me of $167. This was not subsidised. I do not smoke,
but I have on occasion purchased cigarettes for other people, and as I
remembered, they are $2.35 a pack.

That's $141. As I said, about enough to pay for Kaiser.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7796 ca.politics:10419
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Check your facts before posting, Phil
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:19:57 GMT

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >
>
>That Democratic judge in NY that sent the murder threat to an ex-lover,
>sexually nasty notes to her daughter, and condoms to her son, and made
>the threating sick phone calls, HE gets sympathy, including a comment
>from Ed Koch about paying "attention to [the man's] accomplishments"
>and to "not let this [scandal] besmirch his reputation".

This is false.  The judge is not a Democrat, but a Republican.
Explain that one, Phil.

>Striking double standard here.

On your part, yes.

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
From: manley@optilink.COM (Terry Manley)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Health insurance stuff
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:42:47 GMT
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

In article <1992Dec15.051449.3687@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>There are now over 17,000 "price codes" that insurance companies have
>doctors charge under. Each price code has a ceiling for which the insurance
>companies will NOT pay over.


Saying that there are ceilings for each price code does not say
that these ceilings are fixed.  In my experience, and lately
that has been quite a bit, doctors know exactly where the ceiling
is and charge either that amount or some small percent over (say 10%).

My insurance company (AETNA) pays what is "usual and customary" for
service charges in my region.  They also adjust the "usual and customary",
i.e. the ceiling, every six months.

If most doctors are charging slightly over the ceiling, the result is
that every six months the ceiling goes up.  The patients don't
complain too much because the insurance covers most of the bill.  In
my case I asked in advance if the doctors would work for only what
insurance would pay (some would, some wouldn't, some you can't really
ask because they are specialists brought in without your approval) and
if they wouldn't and charged more than the insurance would pay then I
complained.  In some cases I complained a lot, and some doctors agreed
to waive the additional fees (I saved thousands of dollars out of my
pocket this way).  In other cases I found out that the insurance
company had raised the ceiling and got them (the insurance company) to
agree to cover my bills at the new ceiling. 

The bottom line is while you can say:

> Hardly a case of encouraging doctors to charge more.

I would say, in my experience (the weasel words are for all you 
weasels out there), the current system is doing little to
discourage doctors from charging more. 

The real question is why are the doctors charging more? Is
it purely driven by their increased cost of doing business,
or have the found a way of increasing their earnings without
really pissing anyone off too much?


dave
manley@optilink.com

...and he didn't even mention NAMBLA or HOMOSEXUALS or AIDS once...
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:07:08 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <1992Dec10.031248.23667@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>But, what say we look beyong this PC stereotype and ask ourselves, just WHAT
>is the story of Rambo?

How many stars Phil? Thumbs up or down? Any chainsaws?...
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Check kiting in Congress
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:02:36 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <Bz1Av0.9JH@queernet.org> rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.053057.37@Cadence.COM>, phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
>writes:
>|> At the very least, they disobeyed their own laws by not reporting interest
>|> they didn't have to pay as income as you and I would have to do if we tried
>|> the same thing.

>Huh?  What are you saying: the interest they didn't have to pay on an
>interest-free loan is income?!  Huh?

Yes, Robert.  If you don't believe us just ask the IRS.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7757 talk.politics.misc:64473
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Are they not men?
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:00:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <104863@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <1992Dec14.052336.14122@netcom.com>
> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> >Sailors ARE a horny bunch. Being at sea for months at a time does nothing
> >for it -- witness the cluster of prostitution (and bars etc.) around
> >naval ports.
> 
> Indeed. There were over a hundred reports of sexual misconduct during the
> Gulf War. Only four were homosexual, and three of those were consensual
> acts.

Of course.  Homosexuals aren't inducted, and are separated from the
service when discovered.  Next you will surprise us with the very
low number of females in the military going AWOL.  No more than
4% of the general population is homosexual.  In the military, it's
doubtless much lower.  Do you think it's even .4% of the military
is homosexual?  In that case, 4 homosexual misconducts out of 100
total is nothing to brag about -- quite the opposite.

> kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Are they not men?
Date: 19 Dec 92 12:16:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Dec18.215229.8129@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
    >Second, even if I accept that the story is true, what this
    >story indicates is NOT that homosexuals shouldn't be in the
    >Navy, but that the commanding officer on that ship should
    >have been relieved of duty. He was allowing his men to be
    >assualted by other men under his command. Clearly a gross
    >failure of leadership. What if instead of straight men it had
    >been black sailors being assaulted, or jewish sailors ? Would
    >that be a reason to exclude whites or gentiles from the Navy
    >?

The issue is NOT about assaults. It is about the right to control the sexual
context one is placed in. We do NOT have enlisted men and women sleeping
in common bunk rooms and showering in the same showers. Even though the
men are NOT going to go crazy and start raping the women the minute they
see them naked.

Why DON'T we make women sleep and shower with the men?

Because it would interfere with their right to control the sexual contexts
they are placed in. Men have that same right as well. Even in dangerous
situations we respect that right -- for example, policewomen search
male suspects, policemen search male suspects. And there seems to
be an ongoing case in Illinois about whether a women prison guard can
pe4rform observation duty in the men's showers. Seems the convicts don't
like -- they feel their privacy is unduly invaded.

Given homosexual sleeping and showering arrangements, I otherwise don't see
too much of a problem.

BTW - the U.S. and the U.K. ban homosexuals.

NATO members Portugal and Greece ban them as well. Canada had a ban
until October.

Belgium, France, and Germany alow them, but place restrictions, such as
limiting security classifications, and excluding them from leadership and
recruiting roles, as well as removing them from duty if their behaviour
"disturbs others". New Zeland also doesn't allow them.

-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Health insurance stuff
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:39:16 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <1992Dec12.034504.14640@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>For example, El Camino hospital, near where I live, is not a public
>hospital. When a part-time nanny I occasionaly employ went there for
>an emergency, she ended up costing the hospital over $80,000.

>She has Krohn's disease, an autoimmune disorder of the intestine. When
>it flares up, and it can do that it in a few hours, the person must
>receive a "total nutrient" IV. The hospital bill charged $800 a
>bag, and she was getting one bag an hour.

>She has no medical insurance.

>Two weeks, $80,000.

On the other hand, can someone with Krohn's disease buy medical
insurance?  It seems that the only way she could be covered (w/o going
onto an employer's plan -- some waive the pre-existing for actual
employees, some waive it after a certain amount of time) would be to
have started insurance early and never dropping it (which, I note, is
what you seem to be doing for your daughter).  What solution would
you propose for someone in her situation, either

(a) starting from where she is now or

(b) starting from scratch, knowing that something like this could happen?

If you couldn't tell, I'm somewhat sympathetic to something like a
national health plan.  Your housekeeper's problem is not the result of
a "lifestyle choice", except that she "chose" not to have health
insurance (interesting choice on a housekeeper's earnings, too).

David Chase
Sun
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Recall California Governor Pete Wilson!
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:21:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.230731.2505@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.212502.17121@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> Yeah right.  You folks are going to go after the legislature next.
>> Right.
>
>I don't know about you, but my state legislator isn't one of the
>'leaders'.  I don't *get* a direct vote on any of 'em.  (I did,
>however, vote against the incumbents from my district in any case....)

So?  The recall wilson folks are asking for MONEY, not votes or
signatures.  Money crosses district boundaries.

>> It's much easier/cheaper to force all of the legislative leadership
>> into a recall than it is to recall the governor.  Yet, we see NOTHING
>> along those lines.
>
>Wrong.  It's easier to go after the governor.  To get the 'legislative
>leaders' you've got to mount *several* recall efforts instead of a
>single, statewide, effort.

You've got to mount 2-3 SMALL recall efforts.  Remember that money?
It crosses district boundaries.  It takes less money to fund a couple
of in-district recall efforts than it does to fund a statewide recall.

Note that the signature gathers in those districts could be collecting
signatures for those recalls.  The group involved could be interested
in recalling Brown and Roberti.  They aren't.  Since they say they are
....

-andy
--
Newsgroups: ba.politics