HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 5 Oct 92 01:41:56 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <7464@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>People that make this comment don't understand the nature of the job. Systems
>programmers need to be next to the machine.

As I stated, in the case of MVS, sitting next to my 386/PC at home is
as close to a S/370 as I have to be in order to do "systems programming".
Only recently did I throw out my 3x5 cards for doing obscene things to
virtual machines.  And I did all of those things from a PS/2 running AIX.

>If my job _could_ be sent overseas cheaper and just as effectively, I'd have
>to live with that. Union steelworkers who have priced their jobs at five times
>the going rate on the world market are in for a very harsh dose of reality: a
>job isn't worth more money just because you coerce an employer into paying
>more for it. At some point, he'll find a cheaper alternative.

Systems programming =can= be done cheaper and just as effectively overseas.

As for union steelworkers, the problem with them isn't the high rate they
charge.  The non-union shops I worked in paid comparable wages, but turned
out a far superior product for less total cost to the buyer.  American
workers are still the most productive in the world, period.
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Prove it!
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:26:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.134526.14899@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Sep24.193955.21806@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep22.142619.19948@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>
>>>(we expire fools like you quickly
>>>around here).
>>>
>>>You've lied by
>>>ommission about what's in Gray's Anatomy and then 'declared victory'.
>>>
>>>That's just one of your problems, John.  You're BORING.  But that's
>>>hardly first on what is a very long list.
>
>>	Ah, a fine discussion....	
>
>Perhaps, but given what I was responding to, it was pretty
>appropriate.

	Given what your were responding to hasn't a thing to do with
how you are, how your personal ethics allow you to be. You allow 
yourself to act childish. That's a convenience I reserve for having
fun at play, not for dealing with adults, adult topics in a political
newsgroup. 
	Furthermore, why not let John's style work against him, as it should?
You obliterate the advantage he gives you by responding "in kind".
These are my opinions, and I am content knowing you won't accept them.
I will continue to repeat them as I feel necessary. I mention this so
you'll know that I don't expect any change from you. Keep posting as you
are now. Change when you decide, and to whatever style you feel is
appropriate. Good day.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Prove it!
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:29:17 GMT

In article <21638@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.212621.26756@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>>	Furthermore, why not let John's style work against him, as it should?
>
>You mean, my style of documenting what I post?  Or my style of not having
>any tolerance for idiots?  I'm not sure which style you are referring to
>and why that style will, or should, work against me ...

	Your style of not having any tolerance for those you feel it
safe to deem idiots. You make good points, don't get me wrong. Fortunately,
you serve them with a side order of anger. Unfortunately, Fred vollies
the anger. It's one thing to profess to being religious, and quite
another to demonstrate the effects of that religion. Why does yours
leave you so angry? Why does it not stop you from labelling dissenting
opinions as idiot? Why does it fail to restrain you from answering a 
well-wisher with "Fuck you."? Could you not have turned the cheek?
Your answer: he didn't really wish you well. Fine. Why does your
religion not prevent you from such extreme mistrust? If we're to
"Do unto others", that includes trust, no? Ah, but these are just
weird Joeisms. Not much more need be said than to examine the
results of your posts.
	That's all my opinion, of course. My post was to Fred. He
had complaints about you. He felt the way to counter your expression
of your anger was to express his ability to be distasteful. I merely
ask him to let you spoil your own soup, and not insist upon spoiling
his in reply.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: quayle
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:15:15 GMT
Reply-To: curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072)
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin, TX


                   =====  EDUCATION '92  =====

*8   PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE:  DEBATE SPILLS OVER TO V.P. CAMPAIGN
     V.P. Dan Quayle yesterday said he will be "at a big
disadvantage" in debates with Sen. Al Gore because he attended
public school, while Gore attended private school (multi.).
"It's going to be a very interesting contest," said Quayle.
     Quayle attended public schools in Ind. and Ariz., and
attended DePauw U, a private school in Ind.  Gore attended St.
Albans, an "exclusive" prep school in Wash. D.C., and Harvard U.
     "The comments seemed to be an attempt to lower expectations
for any debates that may held -- the locations, formats and dates
of which are still up in the air," writes the L.A. TIMES.
President Bush has done the same thing as Quayle, however, writes
the newspaper.  Bush recently told reporters that he is "no
Oxford debater," referring to Dem presidential nominee Bill
Clinton's Rhodes scholarship.
     The TIMES notes that although Quayle attended public school,
his three children have attended private school since he became
v.p.
     According to the newspaper, David Beckwith, Quayle's
spokesman said the v.p. was joking.  "He had a big smile on his
face when he made those remarks.  He was having a little fun with
the media elite," writes the TIMES.
     According to the TIMES, Gore "laughed heartily" when he
learned of Quayle's comments.  "What puts the Bush-Quayle team at
a disadvantage ... is that they have presided over the worst
economic performance since the Great Depression," he said (10/1).

--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |       Austin, TX
 -Public school administration has gone from 15% to 30% of expenses since 1960-
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 28 Sep 1992 12:01:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <21629@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>Actually, MVS systems programming CAN be done reasonably over the network.
[...]
>There's no machine like a Virtual Machine.

...especially if you want to waste 18% or so of your machine's horsepower on
VM itself. Being a state agency, we're chronically short of dollars, so we
can't afford luxuries like that.
You do have a point, though.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Are High Tech jobs secure?
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:08:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:

>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>>I doubt seriously that senior MVS systems programmers come all that much
>>cheaper in Mexico, and they certainly don't here where the machine actually
>>is.

>Ah, the fallacy of a secure "high tech" job. Mexico is probably a bad example
>when it comes to software, but China and Russia are not. I have been sent a

You don't see High tech companies screaming for protection from the
Japanese or the Russians or the Chinese.  If they write better software
we welcome the competition.

High tech careers, (perhaps not jobs,) most certainly are secure.  
High wage brainless steel worker jobs are gone.  Mostly thanks to
programmers like the ones here and in Germany and Japan.

We just need to get our math and science education up to par in this
country and we would have much less of this problem.


-- 
--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
 - Begin means testing of Social Security, Medicare and Farm Subsidies now. -
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5867 alt.politics.clinton:8613
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Good Teachers in Public Schools (Was Re: Clinton ... (was Re: Theft))
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:23:35 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Oct05.182911.11770@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>> The facts are simple.  The amount of money you pay a teacher is NOT
>> related to the quality of the teacher.  Teacher pay is already very
> 
>I'm surprised that you, of all people, would make such a statement that is
>so ignorant of marketplace forces. 

Teaching is a commodity skill.  =I= could be a teacher, =you= could be a
teacher.  For this reason, pay will always be low.  Even if the most
highly qualified person in the world were to come along, pay would remain
low.

Whenever a profession becomes a "commodity" profession, pay rates fall.
The pay rate will fall until is above the lowest paid professional that
has the skills required.  Since accountants, who are some of the lowest
paid 4 year degree workers, are qualified to teach math well into the
high school level, math teachers will remain low paid - even though
someone with a PhD in Applied Mathematics is more "qualified."

You cannot produce a better product simply by throwing money at the
person selling it.
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: BullShit
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:28:45 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Oct3.042322.25896@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>So, what John Haugh II is telling us is that he will lie whenever it
>is convenient to do so?

No, I plainly said that if it isn't your business, I will give you whatever
answer you want.  My income is none of your business.  My sexual orientation
is none of your business.  My religious affiliation is none of your
business.  If I should turn out to secretly be a gay atheist billionare
(aren't we all?) it STILL is none of your business.

Now, since you are completely unable to read, I'll point out that I have on
no occassion ever posted my salary.  My comment was directed specifically at
James Berry who claimed to have some inside information.  I was quite simply
pointing out that his inside information is probably wrong, and intentionally
so.  After all, it was none of his business.  Given the nature of gossips,
would anyone be stupid enough to give out information they didn't want spread
about the net?
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Subject: Re: so what gives?
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:59:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.212906.1331@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:

>1) How many of you have actually read Perot's book.
>2) How many have actually read Clinton's book.
>3) Who thinks that Perot will be a factor in Texas.
>and

I have no answers to these questions.

>4) Why is the debate format such a big deal?

Now, this one I have an opinion on. My observation of the two
headlining candidates indicates that they have rather different
skills. George Bush, as far as I can observe, is a very poor
extemporaneous speaker. He just can't improvise. His sorry attempts at
dynamic speech during press conferences, interviews, and other events
demonstrate an inability to master the basic concepts of English
grammar. In fact, I've seen him make complete, comprehensible
statements only in prepared speeches. Does this make him less
qualified as a leader? Hard to say, although it certainly doesn't
inspire confidence.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, is a good extemporaneous speaker. He
doesn't stumble over his grammar, and for the most part his grammar is
good. While he tends to dodge questions and his statements frequently
have no content whatsoever, he *sounds* good. He doesn't sound like he
bumbling and stumbling his way through speech.

I think George Bush knows this, and he's terrified of meeting Clinton
face-to-face in front of the camera. No doubt he'll prepare plenty of
material before the debates, but it comes down to this: if he's not as
smooth as a TV anchorperson, he's going to look bad. My advice to Bush
(should he choose to listen), is to minimize the number, length, and
interactivity of the debates. They can only serve to make him look
bad. Of course, he's already scheduled 2 debates during World Series
games, which should help him out a bit (no way is CBS going to drop
baseball coverage for presidential debates).

>5 weeks to go.....and we can get back to work...

-- 
#      Rick Russell | TAMU Meteorology | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu       # 
#     "I want to Krazy Glue my head to the bottom of a BIIIG           #
#      steel girder!" - Weird Al Yankovic                              #
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Pro-life vs. Pro-abortion
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 17:34:09 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <21627@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
|> 	8 weeks		. . .
|> 			For several weeks now the baby has been capable
|> 			of feeling pain; it can even be taught conditioned
|> 			response.

Now *I'm* wondering if this is a biased source.  Brain waves are
measurable.  Pain cannot be measured.  Response to stimulus can be
observed, but whether it hurts or not is something that must be
inferred.

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWD Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"It takes a big man to cry.  And it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
                                                              -- Jack Handey
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5732 alt.politics.clinton:7659
From: moller@austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:52:33 GMT
Reply-To: moller@austin.ibm.com
Organization: As little as I can get away with.

In article <00717012582@elgamy.sccsi.com>, elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:

[...]

> 
> I have another question for you: What right do you have to your money?
> 
> I see nothing in the U.S. Constitution which says that you have a right to
> earn a six-figure number of dollars per year.

4th amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their ... effects,
against unreasonable ... seizures, shall not be violated, ..."  No, there
is no explicit right to earn a six-figure income, but there is very much
a right to have it safe from government confiscation.

> 
> In truth, it's useful to allow you to do so

How kind of you to "allow" people to have an income...

>                                             -- it provides an incentive for
> you to contribute to society -- but it's not a "right". I don't see what
> your problem is with taxes... your argument seems based upon you having a
> "right" to your money, rather than upon the incentive value of money. If
> the only way we can get you to contribute to society is by throwing money
> at you, fine and dandy. That doesn't mean that it's the ONLY way, though.
> Otherwise I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing.
> 
>  --
>  Eric Lee Green  elg@elgamy.sccsi.com         Dodson Elementary
>  (713) 437-6908  uunet!nuchat!elgamy!elg      Houston, TX
>                 "Kids are kids, no matter what"

-- 
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my	|   "Progress might have been all right
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot	|   once, but it went on too long."
possibly represent its position.	|     -- Ogden Nash

Christian H. L. Moller
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: Gee, why don't we default on the US debt!!!?
Followup-To: tx.politics
Summary: No ... let's just print more money instead.  
Keywords: Tax and Spend ... and borrow and spend some more ...  
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Organization: The Republic of Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:44:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.160530.15018@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
- The Roman empire fell after hundreds of years of unprecedented
- successes.  The Dark Ages followed for 1,000 years.  This world wide
- society we've created may also, if people start chucking
- responsibilities as Mr. Haugh and Mr. Boerner suggest.
 
	Oh, we're talking about responsibility.  In that case, 
   let's do the responsible thing and stop buying presents for 
   other folk (foreign aid) while we're in debt.  Heck, let's 
   do the really responsible thing and tighten our belts, cut 
   (Federal) government spending on the military, foreign aid, 
   social programs, the so-called War on Drugs, matching funds 
   for political campaigns, et cetera, ad nauseum UNTIL WE PAY 
   OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT.  

	That is, if responsibilty is really the issue. 

 
- Let's just forget about this nonsensical yammering right now.
- 
- Please.

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  Why change Bush in the middle of a screw?     
  kossack@qvi.com  |  Re-elect George in '92!    
  +1 713 240 2073  |
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-life vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:19:32 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep30.165802.5761@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>This could be true.  I suspect that such experimentation has not been
>done, because nobody would volunteer to have her unborn baby injured
>just to see what its hormones do.  And even if the hormones do the
>right thing, you still don't know if it really hurts, you can only
>guess.

The point is that unborn children ARE injured all the time.  As I stated
in the very beginning of one of these threads, we know that children
react in certain manners because now we have ultrasound and ultrasound is
used to help a prenatal surgeon with whatever it is they do.

Your mistake is in the assumption that the injury must be intentional.  It
doesn't, and in fact it often isn't.  But the child is "injured" just the
same.
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: BullShit
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:48:51 GMT

In article <21671@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.042322.25896@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>So, what John Haugh II is telling us is that he will lie whenever it
>>is convenient to do so?
>
>No, I plainly said that if it isn't your business, I will give you whatever
>answer you want.  My income is none of your business.  My sexual orientation
>is none of your business.  My religious affiliation is none of your
>business.  If I should turn out to secretly be a gay atheist billionare
>(aren't we all?) it STILL is none of your business.

In other words, you will lie when it suits you and say whatever is
convenient.  If you will lie in that situation (rather than simply
saying that it is none of their business) and will say whatever is
convenient for you, why should you be believed about anything?

>
>Now, since you are completely unable to read, I'll point out that I have on
>no occassion ever posted my salary.  

Sorry, but my reading is fine.  Your problem is that you want to write
publicly, but only have one person read it.  If you don't want it
read, don't write it, John.  And, while you have never given specific
numbers, you most certainly have implied a general range.  Of course,
now that you admit that you will lie when it suits you, such
implications on your part are obviously not to be believed.

>My comment was directed specifically at
>James Berry who claimed to have some inside information.  I was quite simply
>pointing out that his inside information is probably wrong, and intentionally
>so.  After all, it was none of his business.  Given the nature of gossips,
>would anyone be stupid enough to give out information they didn't want spread
>about the net?

I suspect that James Berry got his 'inside information' from John
Haugh II's statements about the general ballpark that his income lies
in.  Of course, now that we know that it is John Haugh II who lies,
and not his income, we know better than to believe what he writes.


-- 
"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.
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5777 alt.politics.clinton:7978