HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Men/Blacks Are Not Cost Effective
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:07:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.163019.13460@cs.rose-hulman.edu> serranrj@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU writes:
>I don't know how many people on this group read soc.culture.african.american
>but I can tell you that this Napa author has been very busy of late, having
>written at least two books of the "Not Cost Effective" type ("Blacks are Not
>Cost Effective" and this one).  Surprisingly enough, both say exactly the same
>thing except substituting Blacks and Men.  Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

I think that the point was to show how ludicrous one was by substituting in
words to form the other.  (Which version was the original and which was the
parody isn't especially clear, however....)
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17446 rec.sport.hockey:9261
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:23:51 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <18370@ector.cs.purdue.edu> gritter@cs.purdue.EDU (Carl R. Gritter) writes:
>The owner gets twice as much as Wayne because he/she is the one who is
>taking all the risks.  

I'd say there'd have to be a pretty huge risk to justify a 233% return.
Heck, most junk bonds are under a tenth of that.

Now, if the owner can trick Gretzky into taking a contract for less than
half of what he's worth, more power to him.  Except in Gretzky's case
(and Gordie Howe's before him), when you have a player who's far and
away the best in the league, he sets the salary scale, so when Gretzky
gets paid less than half of what he's worth, it means that all of the
players suffer along with him.  To Gretzky, it might not matter -- what's
another million?  To Jacques Schmo, who's given up a college education
and several teeth for a short hockey career, it makes a big difference.

Incidentally, the San Jose Sharks was a good counter-example refutation
of my incorrect statement about marketing.  I'll be curious to see
whether the franchise can continue its success ten years down the road
when the novelty's worn off and the other major professional sports
realize what a large market they're ignoring.
-- 
Ted Frank          + "A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in
U o' C Law Skool   +  color and content according to the circumstances and
Chi, IL 60637      +  the time in which it is used."  --  Holmes
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism
From: mece3d@jane.uh.edu (Chris Struble)
Subject: Re: Class Warfare is STUPID...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:00:00 GMT

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

I could not think of a stronger reason for limiting the coercive power of
majorities.

This is the old "tyranny of the majority" argument, very popular among
socialists in the past century or so. It goes something like this:

"In a democracy, the majority decides. You, the minority (or the individual,
which is the ultimate minority) have no rights unless we choose to give
them to you. If we (or our elected representatives) decide we don't like
you, we can seize your house, your car, your family, even your life, if we
the people feel like it. After all, the majority rules. Anything else is
undemocratic, and you wouldn't want to be against democracy, would you?"

Of course, replace "our Fuhrer" for "our elected representatives" and
"Jew" or "black" for "rich" and the tyranny is pretty easy to see, isn't
it? 

And by the way, leaving is precisely what many of the rich are doing, to
the detriment of the nation ...

>--
>Mike Kelly               Odesta Corporation, Northbrook, Illinois, USA
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Christian Struble	   |  To shield people from the consequences   |
|  Mechanical Engineering  |  of their own folly is to fill the	       | 
|  University of Houston   |  world with fools  		       |	
|  mece3d@jetson.uh.edu	   |    	Herbert Spencer		       |	
------------------------------------------------------------------------	
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs,misc.legal,alt.drugs
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Fully Informed Jury Association (Pamphlet)
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 15:53:16 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <56980@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>
>> FIJA's overall goal is to rescue America's heritage
>> of personal freedom and responsibility by reviving 
>> both the jury instructions and the understanding of 
>> "trial by jury" in effect when our nation was born.
>
>That heritage was irretrievably lost when the average
>voter became an idiot.

Given this premise, democracy is insupportable.  Anyone for a
benevolent dictator?  (and no, H. Ross Perot is NOT benevolent)

>> (2) Legislators will have access to regular feedback
>> from ordinary people, sitting on juries, instead of
>> mainly from special-interest groups and other very
>> political sources. This information will allow them to 
>> better represent the will of the people; and
> 
>Legislators already have regular feedback from ordinary
>people.  It's called an election.

Positive feedback isn't such a good thing...


-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17683 ca.politics:3399 ba.politics:2625 alt.politics.homosexuality:1958 soc.motss:19889
From: fellers@utkvx4.utk.edu (Michael Fellers, University of Tennessee)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:28:00 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <HiZ1iB1w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM>, djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes...
>fellers@utkvx4.utk.edu (Michael Fellers, University of Tennessee) writes:
> 
>> 	Pray-tell: exactly what is the difference?  There both "lifestyles." 
>> Children of most religious people get absolutely DRILLED in the religious dog
>> of their particular church and taught that theirs is the only "correct" one. 
>> There are probably about 500 different religions in the world, so shouldn't
>> children be un-coerced into a specific one?  
>> 	Why are the two subjects different?
>> 
>> 						Michael Fellers
>> 						fellers@utkvx.utk.edu 
> 
>Since the original post stated that there was some intrinsic
>similarity between homosexuality and religion... I do think
>you may be slightly off track.


	I simply responded to your post, dear.  So I'm not at all off-track. 
It's called the evolution and progression of a conversation, sweety.  If we
kept going over and over the same old arguments the people on the net would get
*REALLY* bored.  And I notice that you have failed to refute what I pointed
out.


>This entire subject is starting to take on overtones of 'baby'
>logic..
> 
>You know..... 'If you can do that - I can do this! Nyaah Nyaah!'
> 
>I just consider the source.


	How immature.  You're a fine one to talk of 'baby' logic.  When you
can't come up with a logical refutation to an argument (you must admit that you
failed to, at least in this case) you start the name calling.  Tsk, Tsk!  
	Do grow up, dear.


>-djk
> 
>--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
>--- NMS&Systems Engineering ----------------------------------------
>--- Djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM / ..CtEdge!Nitro!Djk ----------------------
>-- 'innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------


						Michael Fellers
						fellers@utkvx.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu (Don McGregor)
Subject: Re: Candidate Larry Agran Excluded, Arrested
Reply-To: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu
Organization: Oregon State University - Univ. Computing Services
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 07:30:22 GMT

Harel Barzilai writes
>       Regarding "tiny mayor" of a "tiny city," Irvine is one of the 200
>largest cities in the United States. 

An affluent, white bread suburb full of yupsters.  Being elected mayor of a  
small city isn't an astounding political feat.  Turnout is usually low  
(around 20%) so small, well-organized groups can often dominate the  
electoral process through aggressive get-out-the-vote campaigns among their  
supporters.  That he was tossed out on his ear by the voters of Irvine does  
not speak volumes for his electoral appeal either.  Truly effective leaders  
can take occasional unpopular stands and be re-elected.

Sounds to me as if he pushed his agenda to far and got name recognition  
among the voters, who promptly said "who the fuck is this guy?" and pulled  
his plug.  Strictly a double-A player who thinks he should be NL MVP.

>And in any case, that's still a lot more
>public service experience than some of the bozos running for President  
(e.g.Buchanan, Perot).

Perot got _a single_ spot on a radio talk show in which he hinted that he  
wanted to run.  The latest polls put him at something like 20% of the vote.  
(Several polls show this, not one or two anomolous ones.) Buchannan has long  
White House experience and took 40% of the vote in New Hampshire. Agran got  
0% of the vote in Democratic primaries in Minnesota, Wisconsin, New  
Hampshire and Kansas, and 1% in New York.  He got about 1% in South Dakota,  
despite being included in the candidate debate.  Harold Stassen was running  
neck-and-neck with him in Wisconsin.  He was outpolled by favorite son  
candidates in several states.  When you're at 1% or below in DEMOCRATIC  
primaries in so-called progressive states, you're a fringe candidate.   

>     The suggestion that Agran get a crowd of 10,000 ignores common sense.
>How can a candidate attract a crowd if the party and the national media
>systematically denies him access to the voters?  

Why do you think that the national media owes Agran anything?  It's up to  
him to prove that he has a viable following.  For the most part Agran's  
policies aren't distinguishable from Jesse Jackson's a few years ago.  The  
difference? Jackson demonstrated some appeal at the ballot box by winning  
some primaries, and finishing strongly in others. Something Agran has never  
done.  He's even shown that he has a strong NEGATIVE following by failing to  
be re-elected mayor.

--
Don McGregor             | California danger signs: you own more pairs of 
mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu| shorts than you do long pants.
From: mlh@abcom.ATT.COM (XXXX Mark Hampton )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush a failed President
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:05:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T(IMS-DPO), Aurora, Colorado

From article <1992Apr9.171441.23941@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by ocb@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (owen.c.brennan):

# "READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES!"  	No candidate has ever laid out a mandate
# like that and gone against it so quickly.  All candidates make promises
# that they don't keep but this was his pledge and his platform that he
# felt would mark his Presidency.  Now that it is going to come back and
# bite him, Bush says he's sorry but it's Congress's fault.  At the same
# time he says this he submits HIS BUDGET to Congress and it calls for 
# a $400 BILLION DEFICIT.  Each year Congress has had to cut and redistribute
# Bush's out of control spending.  Bush is just a closet liberal and you
# never know when he'll jump out with a new suit on.
# 
# SAY NO TO FOUR MORE YEARS!
# 
# Owen Brennan                  

What is this?  First you lament the fact that Bush was forced to raise
taxes when he promised not to, and then you go on about how he gives
Congress budgets which are $400 billion in the red.  Now I ask you
how is he supposed to pay for Congress' obsession with entitlement
programs, which do *NOTHING* to create new jobs and is the *LARGEST*
part of the budget *AND* has everything to do with Congress-slime
getting re-elected, if he doesn't raise taxes?  Don't tell us "CUT
DEFENSE, CUT DEFENSE", unless you wish for a recession that is worse
than the current one.  Besides, the defense budget is smaller than
Social Security *ALONE* (29% - 31%).  Add to that all of the other
give-away programs and useless departments that Congress insists must
stay alive, and you quickly get the picture of where the defecit comes
from.  Furthermore, Bush already cut defense in that "$400 BILLION
DEFICIT" budget he sent to Congress by, I believe, 5% per year for the
next 5 years.  The funny thing is that if he cut it by %50 there would
*STILL* be a sizable defecit.  So what is is he going to do?

There is only one way to cut the defecit and that is to reduce services
and raise taxes.  Nothing else is going to do it, my friend.  If you
think Slick Willie is going to do that, especially when he has to think
about getting re-elected in 1996, you are sadly mistaken.  In my opinion
Tsongas was the only candidate who was willing to do what was necessary
to reduce the defecit, even at the expense of getting re-elected.  To
bad most Democrats didn't feel that way.

Mark Hampton
Denver Data Center
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17578 alt.politics.elections:658 misc.taxes:2185 alt.society.civil-liberty:3336
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot upcoming appearance on Larry King April 16th
Date: 12 Apr 1992 23:56:54 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:

>  Well, I just got through on the line, and I missed the info about 
>earlier C-SPAN appearances (4/10 and 4/11), but he will be on Larry
>King Live again this Thursday.  Try and call in and get your burning
>questions answered first-hand!!!

Since I normally don't watch television, I'm going to have a friend
make an audio tape of the show.  What time does this run?  If I can get
a tape, I can probably write up a transcript within a couple hours
(time to correct spelin erorz).

Let's get together and try to get REAL questions on the show.  I think
we should debate until Thursday on what the 3 MOST IMPORTANT questions
to ask this guy are... and then try to get at least 20 or 30 people
from the net to put LKL on their auto-dialers and get these questions
asked.  It would be a shame if this media event was ruined by a bunch
of ignorant jerks saying "Hey remember me from 1980 something?  Your
company fired me and I'm pissed off..."

I'll start off the debate with a few ideas for questions:

Mr. Perot.  Many potential supporters of you applaud your dedication to
change, but are concerned with your record in dealing with civil rights
issues.  Can you, as clearly as possible, outline your opinion on the
War on Drugs, what it has done to our country, and what you would like
to do with it?

Your opinions about an "electronic town hall" are very interesting.
Does this mean that you support bringing networks such as Internet into
every home by pushing Congress to accept ISDN as a low cost alternative
to the broadband networks that already connect nearly every university,
government office, and business in America?  (Note.  This is a leading
question.  If someone would actually ASK this on LKL, the press might
just snag a few of the buzzwords and begin repeating them through the
media.)

Mr Perot, what is your electronic mail address?

Cheers.

Stratocaster
-- 
  Steve Davis  |    Contact me at ...            | The Boarding House BBS!
               | Internet:  strat@cis.ksu.edu    | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
               | FidoNet:    Steve @ 1:295/3     | America: 913-827-0744
 ** To believe everything is too much.  To believe nothing is not enough. **
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Dumb, Sheltered College Puke( wasRe: Perot hang'in from a willow tree)
Keywords: WRONG NEWS GROUPS....
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:24:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Apr.6.10.47.54.1992.6323@gandalf.rutgers.edu>, shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:

> I think we should legalize recreational drugs and treat them the
> way we treat the alcohol and tobacco industries.  Tax them.  The
> government is missing out on a great source of revenue here.

Hey, Jeez, give 'em time, willya?  They just figured out GAMBLING.
-- 

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...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17224 alt.politics.elections:523 misc.taxes:2143 alt.society.civil-liberty:3283
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:36:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa,riggs@tec.army.mil,lpj@col.hp.com
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1992Apr7.220611.9488@col.hp.com> lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson) writes:
>frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:
>> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>> 
>> >Vaccination and child labor are the responsibility of the parents.
>
>
>This is OK if you assume that children are the chattel of their
>parents and have no rights to protection beyond what their parents
>deem appropriate.  
>
>I don't agree with that assumption. 
>-- 


	I am not aware that child labor is a problem in this country.
There may be some parents who exert pressure on their kids to stay home
and service the family fortune, but for the most part, this only happens
after the children reach the age of legal consent. This happens most in 
immigrant families that haven't learned the ropes of American society
yet. Even in these cases, the law makes the kids go to school until
they are 16. I don't think the libertarians will get too far if they
try and change this.

	Vaccination is another issue altogether. Parents are responsible
for their kids wellbeing, and one of the fault lines in the law is where
the parents' responsiblity ends and society's responsibility begins.

	It is silly to expect a 2 month old baby to exercise its "right
to choose" to take or not to take a DPT shot. But every day, parents must
face up to the consequences of the choices they make on behalf of the 
2 month old set. The law only becomes intolerable when it starts dictating
such choices to the parents (i.e. Your already sick kid has to take his/her
shot because the bureaucracy that enforces the law doesn't see the child's
condition, just a scheduled date on a calendar), or punishes them for guessing
wrong.

	There was a time when the "sons of liberty" used natural law as their
guide to right and wrong. Nowadays, libertarians seem more and more intent
on defying nature, and the only "Natural Law Party" you see these days are
a bunch of British mystics with a quite tenuous grip on reality.

	Bill R.

-- 
Bill R.
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Polling Fraud?
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:07:37 GMT
	<RJC.92Apr14201827@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk>
	<1992Apr14.213425.21703@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research

In article <1992Apr14.213425.21703@midway.uchicago.edu>, Ted Frank (tf) writes:

tf> And it's not too hard to figure out how Gallup chooses its
tf> samples.  

How? The problem is that often the polling is done by some nice little
old lady in the street with a quota of `manual workers', `office
workers' etc. How she picks them is unknown and unknowable. If, for
instance, she gets to the end of the day missing a few manual workers,
well she'll be approaching people who look like such. I was gotten by
someone in that mode the day before the election, why she though I
looked like a likely manual worker I have no idea. Anyway, whatever
criteria she was using obviously bias the sample in some way, I have
no idea how.

tf> It's to the polling companies advantage to provide accurate polls.

This is true for market research and, to some extent, during an
election campagn a polling company is doing market research. However
most polls are done on issues and the people paying for them have a
strong opinion as to what the right answer will be and will be more
likely to re-employ a company which delivers that result. 

For instance imagine a poll on the subject of privetising British
Rail. The Tories or the Daily Telegraph want a headline saying that
80% of people are in favour; Labour and The Guardian want a headline
saying 80% of the people are against and The Independent and the
LibDems want a headline saying 32.6% of people favour privetising
12.8% of it :-). Anyway, any polling company wanting repeat business
will get the result they think the client wants.

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk				_0_
						 |<
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:25:47 GMT

In article <allan.702804563@kitscoty> allan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Allan Sullivan) writes:
>Please don't draw any conclusions on the basis of the Shark's current
>success. After all, they are an expansion team, they are new, and
>hockey is a fad in California (Partly due to the presence of 
>Wayne Gretzky in LA). Instead, wait for about 5-10 years, when
>Gretzky is gone, and the California hockey fad is over, THEN you can
>draw conclusions from their attendance.

First it was San Jose didn't deserve a hockey team because they didn't
support the last one, now it's 'well, it's only been one year'.  The Sharks
have been quite well-marketed in this area, and I don't believe this is
just a fad.

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18004 alt.individualism:2420
From: ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Drug Profit Motives
Date: 13 Apr 92 08:22:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Scranton

In article <rq8f0INN1kn@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
  3)  Because the sale of drugs would be
> institutionalized, there would be no place for mafia-style drug lords.
> They would just dissapear!  Since bad drugs are a big business in this
> country, what would be easier than simply removing the profit
> incentive?  

	Actually it wouldn't take the profit motive out of drugs it would shift
it from the guys in the jungle or ghetto kitchens to the labs at Dow-Corning,
DuPont, Cieba-Giegy, etc. And I'm sure these companies would figure out a way
of paying their part of the taxes, just the consumers would pay the taxes on
them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave D. Cawley		   |	Where a social revolution is pending and,
University Of Scranton	   |	for whatever reason, is not accomplished,
ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu	   |	reaction is the alternative.
ddc1@SCRANTON		   |				-Daniel De Leon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc