HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Summary: Differing views
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:05:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.214556.29784@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Cu writes...
>>In article <1992Sep2.205150.3382@pony.Ingres.COM>, QUOTE OF THE YEAR writes:
>>> Like FDR did when he successfully reduced unemployment.
> 
>FDR's policies, channeling private money into government paper doll
>factories, did no good for the economy.

This is wrong. Unemployment went down from well over 20% when FDR took over
to around 9% in 1940 (before WWII had an effect).

  The depression lasted many
>years longer due to his policies than it otherwise would have.
> 
This is no more than an opinion and therefore means no more than anyone
elses view without facts.

>Recessions are ended by reduced government intervention.

This is a very broad generalization. What do you mean by "intervention"?

>Reduced taxes, (with equally reduced spending.)

Fact?

>Reduced regulation.

What kind of regulation? antitrust regulation? Worker safty laws?
Environmental protection laws? Child labor laws? Minimum wage laws?
Which regulations do you want to throw out? And try to be specific.

>	FDR did none of these.  And the depression went on for YEARS 
>	because of him.
>
Once again, an opinion. BTW, you do remember that the world was suffering
from a world-wide DEPRESSION. Not just recession, depression. The economy
improved every year except 37' under his administration. EVERY YEAR except
about 6 months out of 1937. When did we have a president that could do 
that. If he did such a bad job, as you say, then why was he re-elected 
4 times by wide margins?

>curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 

-Garrett
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: BOOK BANS ON RISE
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:53:01 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <BENEDICT.92Sep14150643@chaos.utexas.edu> benedict@chaos.utexas.edu (Thomas Benedict) writes:
>Here's an synopsis of one story from a particular book.  Tell me if it
>should be banned:
>
>My question:  Should this book be banned?  At LEAST one story is
>highly graphic in nature.  At LEAST one story (not necessarily this
>one) show examples of thwarting authority as being the right thing to
>do.  It has stories that explicitly tell of the work of the devil, and
>the wrath of an angry god and what it can wreak upon the earth.  Is
>this considered to be proper reading material for SIXth graders?
>Should a highschool student be exposed to a book with such a graphic
>description of a rape?  Should we ban the bible?  Whoops!  Silly me.
>I let the title out.  But don't let that change your opinion of the
>book.  After all, no such considerations are made of any of the other
>books that get banned.

	Well, there's one thing you left out about the book- it talks
of those things because it has to. Would you write a book on how to
deal with life, yet skip those disturbing facts that must be dealt with?
This argument is anti-ban, BTW. (-: 
	I'd assume you don't know so, but Twain (at least as portrayed in
a recently viewed movie) once presented this same argument,in the same way,to a 
librarian at a library that'd banned Huck. 


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"They say 'David, what shall I do? They wait for me in the hallway'.
I say 'Don't ask me- I don't know any hallways."- David Bowie, "Scary Monsters"
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5064 alt.politics.clinton:4838
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:58:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

In article <rqiDr*uX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com writes:

>> American Doctors make much more than doctors in other
>> countries.  They are a powerful political lobby group.

>American doctors are better trained than doctors from most other countries.

Says who?  Better than France?  Germany?  England?  Canada?  Japan?

Did an American doctor tell you this?

Are they really twice as good as French doctors?

Maybe they get more because they do more unnecessary procedures here.
Our Caescarian (sp?) rate is very high in this country for example.

Fear of Malpractice (the evil lawyers,) accounts for some of this
certainly.  But not for all.

The challenge for our society is to give people monetary incentives to
do the right thing.  Doctors are not gods above moral question.  They
currently have huge incentives to do needless procedures.

Eye doctors comb the retirement homes looking for cataract patients so
they can get the surgery money.  They do the operation often when it is
only marginally needed.  Medicaire pays.  We the taxpayers pay.  The
patients pay.  The doctors get rich.  If the patients were paying the
bill somehow instead of the government, this abuse would be much less
common.

We can change that somehow without screwing up the market.  
There is a solution.
-- 
--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
 FICA doesn't help the poor.  It mostly goes to old people with incomes >$40k.
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Brainwaves & John Hau
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:59:38 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep14.134137.6363@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
>Subject: Re: Brainwaves & John Hau
>Date: 14 Sep 92 13:41:37 GMT

>In <exuptr.522.716246389@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:

>>Just what species do you propose a fetus to be?  I thought the life issue
>>was the thing.  I didn't think anyone was actually going to try and say a 
>>fetus was a different species until developed.

>Rephrase this slightly to say that SEPARATE IDENTITY and life is the
>issue. 

Can you clarify?  Is the fetus the same person as the mother?  Persons
that claim it is a parasite would be outta luck, then.  It cannot be a 
parasite AND non-separate.

Exactly what is your belief?  No flames, just looking for details.

>>I say a fetus is alive and human.  What do you say it is?  I'm not 
>>interested in you telling me what it is not.

>I say my appendix is alive and human (both true statements).  Does
>this mean I can't have it removed?

Your appendix is alive, human, and part of _you_, is it not.  I'm not really 
sure you could call it human, at least not "a human".  Nor will it ever be a 
human.  It will always be your appendix, unless, as you say, it is removed.

I think you are trying to fiilter only certain qualities of a fetus to your 
advantage.  There are many ways in which the fetus-mother relationship is 
nothing like the appendix-Fred relationship, don't you agree?

Most important being, as I said, your appendix will at best always be your 
appendix.  It is fully realized.  It is not a separate organism.  The fetus 
is conceived separate, attaches for a while, and becomes separate again.  It
does not mirror it's host's genetics.  It develops independently; the mother'
s biology only partly controls development.  None of these things are 
attributable to an appendix, and I don't think there's any other paradigm 
you can match them all to either.

>-- 
>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
> in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Dems and deficits.
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:49:02 GMT
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: Sam Houston's Irregulars

In article <1992Sep4.190545.8976@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
- 
- I love the way "liberal" gets thrown around these days. These liberal bashers
- would be blown away to see a real liberal run for office....

	So would the Democrats, for that matter.   

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  If I must choose between righteousness and peace, 
  kossack@qvi.com  |  I choose righteousness.  
  +1 713 240 2073  |                             -- Theodore Roosevelt
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: JFH and Fred's Ridiculous Flaming
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:59:03 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep9.163035.12604@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Congratulations.  However, how am I to know that you took him out of
>your kill file, after you spent so much bandwidth and were so vehement
>about how and why you had him in it?  Expecting me to read your mind
>or crack your machine to see who is in your killfile today (assuming I
>cared) is the silly part, John.

During that discussion, at no time did I state that I had Joe in the
KILL file.  It has always been Joe who assumes he is in the KILL file
because I don't respond to what he writes.

Next myth.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:16:43 GMT

In <21509@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Sep11.190134.1867@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
>>high growth country? Why is no one complaining that the rates banks charge is
>>pretty high compared to what they borrow for?

>You can have an unstable economy and no inflation.

>As for the bank rate business, banks borrow at 3% or so, and lend at 7% or
>so.  That's a 4% spread.  My mortgage was before the last Fed rate cut, and
>it's a 7.5% mortgage.  Out of the 7.5%, my bank has to pay overhead, profits
>for the owners, write off bad mortgages, and so on.

In the past (pre-1960s), banks charged a 'real interest rate' of
around 2% or less on long-term home loans.  The relatively high real
interest rates are one of the last holdovers from the high inflation
days.  At a time of 3% money, real interest rates of more than 3% on
housing and 8% on things like consumer credit act as a definite drag
on the economy.  Unfortunately, banks have gotten used to this, and
now cry about how if the credit card rates are lowered below 12%-15%,
they will have to start taking them away from people.  In other words,
they've gotten used to being able to take a lot higher percentage in
losses because they were charging high interest rates.  Well, that has
finally come home to roost, both in the economy and in the banking
industry in general (take a look at bank failures, and rumours to the
effect that when it is finally opened up, the bank problems are going
to make the S&L problems look like something you could buy in a gum
machine, insofar as costs go).

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Brainwaves & John Haugh II
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 22:39:19 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX
Keywords: foetus brainwave Gray

In article <1992Sep9.135219.6967@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> According to Gray's Anatomy, the median section of human foetal brain
|> DURING THE THIRD MONTH shows the brain divided into 5 ventricles; not
|> yet formed are the cerebrum, cerebellum and pons.  Perhaps John would
|> like to enlighten us as to how a foetal brain can show READABLE HUMAN
|> BRAINWAVES at 40 days (5-6 weeks) WHEN THE PARTS THAT MAKE A HUMAN
|> BEING DON'T EVEN EXIST YET.
   ^^^^^
I assume you meant to write "BRAIN" and not "BEING".

|> All the higher parts of the brain don't even
|> exist yet, so how can human brainwaves?
|> . . .
|> And yet, John would have us believe that
|> only FIVE DAYS AFTER NEURAL DIFFERENTIATION THERE ARE READABLE HUMAN
|> BRAINWAVES.
|> . . .
|>                                    That says that the parts aren't
|> even all there until around 126 days into gestation, and yet John
|> Haugh would have us believe that readable human brainwaves exist IN
|> MUCH LESS THAN HALF THAT TIME.
|>. . . 
|> In other words, the claims of John's sources that there are "readable
|> human brainwaves" occurring at around 40 days gestational age are
|> untrue.

You haven't shown this at all.  Until we know what brain development
is necessary to produce "readable human brainwaves" (whatever that
means), all you are doing is speculating.  I'd be interested in
knowing the reasoning behind your pathologist friend's "hogwash"
remark though.  You sure seem to have a lot of buddies who like to
make terse assertions.  They are going to have to support their
arguments too--"experts" though they may be.

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: No (was Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston)
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:31:34 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <aSQBr*1W0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.163031.22154@technology.com>, Judy McMillin writes:
>>    Wow, Jim.  And the Bible is not, NEVER has been, nor EVER WILL BE the
>>    guiding law of this country.  However, if you want to live somewhere
>
>Really?  Prove it.  You don't know what is going to happen in the future.
>Your knowledge of the past and present sometimes seems questionable, as well.

	No knowledge of the future is required, Jim.This simply will not
be the United States of America, will no longer be functioning under our
Constitution, should any religion become the law of this land. It pays
to think, Jim, before posting. Your posts will have a lot less of the
kneejerk look-and-feel.

>>    that the religios dogma is their constitution, Saudi Arabia is one
>>    suggestion, I believe the Koran = their constitution.  Maybe you could
>>    start a new country of your own somewhere that uses the "Bible" as its
>>    Constitution and everyone believes in it.  This country REJECTS that
>>    idea.
>
>No, YOU reject it.  You do NOT speak for the country.  Many of the founding
>fathers of this nation had great respect for the Bible.  Many people still do.

	No, _YOU_ reject it. (Notice I added underline to bold, which
tops your bold-only). You do _NOT_ speak for the country. (I did it again-
you'll have to add something to bold&underline to top me now!) (-:

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"They say 'David, what shall I do? They wait for me in the hallway'.
I say 'Don't ask me- I don't know any hallways."- David Bowie, "Scary Monsters"
From: dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Church and state again
Date: 8 Sep 1992 23:21:45 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <1992Sep8.181642.18961@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
>So what? I have friends who are Christians, but that doesn't make me one. My
>understanding of Deism is that it holds God created the world, but does not
>take an active part in it. Hence believing in miracles was out for Deists.
>This is contrary to what many believers I know think. 

Your understanding of deism with respect to deists' beliefs about God's
role on the world is correct.  Deism is certainly contrary to the beliefs
of orthodox Christians.

>I think the main point
>is this: although many of the founders believed in God, they choose to
>keep government independent of this belief. Hence our constitution makes no
>mention of scriptures, Jesus, or specific holy persons. So the motto
>"In God We Trust" applies equally to Christians, Jews, and those who follow
>the teachings of Mohammed.

I have several comments.  First of all, the intent of the founders was
indeed to stop the interference inherent in the state's meddling in
church affairs and vice versa.  However, the intent of the founders
was *not* to remove any semblance of religious belief from public
officials.  In spite of his deist beliefs, Jefferson clearly articulated
his opinion that a public candidate's religious beliefs should be
taken into account when voting (does someone have the exact quote?  It's
not in my quote file.).  

Daryl


-- 
Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    dlb5404@rigel.tamu.edu  or  dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu
        "You're not messy.  You're organizationally impaired."
                _Real_Life_Adventures_, July 3, 1992 
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5255 alt.politics.clinton:5521
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:29:36 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep15.004350.4159@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>  It takes another 1 or 2 years for the policy decisions which
>>are put in place to reverse the earlier damage to work their way into
>>the economy. 
>
>Somehow I don't buy this part.

Sure you don't.  Disbelieving it only requires that you believe
employers re-hire workers the second economic stimulus measures
are passed into law ...

>FOUR YEARS! Unless you can back this up, I'm going to write this off
>as bunk.

In which year were the Kennedy tax cuts passed?  In which year were
the Johnson tax hikes passed?

Kennedy's cuts were passed to lower the deficit and stimulate growth.
Johnson's hikes were passed to rein in inflation.  Of course, we are
forgetting that Kennedy's tax cuts worked and Johnson's didn't.  That's
why inflation was so out of control that Nixon imposed wage and price
controls a few years into his term.

>>Except that you didn't count Carter's last "year" - 1982.
>> 
>Carter's last budget ended in the later part of 81'. How can you 
>attribute 82' to him?

Did all of '82 occur in January?
-- 
John F. Haugh II                             UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151                           Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5105 alt.politics.clinton:4914
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: 11 Sep 1992 15:59:19 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep10.161239.34776@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

>The US system is far from perfect.  The reason it costs so much is
>because the insurance industry is not subject to anti-trust laws and
>therefore they fix the price of medical procedures to artificially
>high "reasonable and prevailing" rates.  That and the monopolistic
>control that the AMA has over who can practice medicine and how they
>can conduct their businesses.  The answer to this is to remove the
>controls and let the market forces determine the prices.  Sending the

1. You have the effect of (alleged) lack of anti-trust laws on insurance
exactly BACKWARDS. A cartel would DECREASE the price it pays for a
good. Not increase. And in fact, that's just what insurance companies
try to do. You're a little closer with

2. The fact doctors stick together and raise rates does explain
something. (The technical term, as I recall, is monopsony for a unique
supplier, but I understand your point).

3. Would you please post an essay on "Market Forces and Goods with
Extremely Inelastic Demand"? We may not be able to afford lots of people
priced out of the medical care market. Tax money to pick up all those
carcasses.

4. Are you aware that those businesses still buying health plans for
employees are some of the LOUDEST in demanding health care reform? It's
not like it's only a plot by agents of socialism.

andy
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-a
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 23:19:22 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <3162.91.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us>, David Brooks writes:

> 
> 
> 
> JP> produce what you claim.  You really ought to read the Bible.  Then you
> JP> would know
> JP> what it really says.  (By the way, the KJV is still the best English
> JP> translation.)
> 
>         As a Biblical scholar, your statement here makes me choke!
>         To begin with, the KJV is not even a translation...it is a
> revision of a version of a translation from German of some rather
> questionable manuscripts. There are several places where the
> translaitons from the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek are simply wrong.
> (ie. "not"'s inserted where the original has none.) Secondly, the
> English is uses is very imprecise, and certainly no longer in common
> usage. There are much better English Translations available,
> including the RSV, NAS, and NIV. IMHO ther NAS is the best available
> English translation since my translation from the Greek NT mirrors it
> in most cases. I'm sure other scholars have differing opinions. I and
> most other biblical scholars would rate the KJV as among the worst
> English versions of the Bible with regards to accuracy and
> inteligibilty. (Also among the worst are the NKJV and "The Living
> Bible".)

Why do you claim to be a Biblical Scholar?  If you were one, you would know that
the NKJV and the Living Bible are NOT translations.  The NKJV is an attempt to
convert KJ English to modern English.  The Living Bible was a paraphrase written
by a father for his children to help them understand the Bible.

The KJV translators did not try to "translate" their views into the scripture.
All the "modern" translations that I've read do (some are worse than others.)
The whole "argument" about "bad" manuscripts is tainted by the views of the
"scholars."  Sometimes the "better" manuscripts are actually worse.  Actually,
the NIV is the worst of the new translations (that I've read.)


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5174 alt.politics.clinton:5153