HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Colorado get Caller ID.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:22:02 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

In article <1993Jan20.142326.514@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> Gee, John, then how about having them reverse it and people have to
|> pay to send caller ID (the default is to not send it or receive it)
|> and that if you don't pay ot send it you have to hit extra numbers?

"How about that"?  The phone company is free to offer the service that way.
I probably wouldn't choose to subscribe to it.

|> Funny how they don't want to do it that way, isn't it.

Of course not, because hardly anybody would subscribe to it, and it wouldn't
generate enough revenue to justify the service.  They're in business to make
money.

Compare this to the concept of unlisted numbers.  They charge a fee to keep
your number unlisted.  Why?  The cost of printing a directory goes DOWN with
one less name to print, right?  The reason is that if the default was to not
have a listed number, a phone book would be fairly useless.  You have to pay
a premium in this case to maintain your anonymity.

|> Frankly, I
|> would have expected you to be just a bit more wary about something
|> they're going to make happen 'for our own good'.

I'm wary about everything.  As long as I have a choice, I'm usually happy.
I would likely dial the damn *76 if I was calling a business, or if I was 
calling your house at 3:00 AM.  But to claim that a business doesn't have the
"right" to offer a service that is in demand at the market price is absurd.

|> But I wouldn't have to press those extra numbers if they didn't try to
|> make me (and not people who want to send Caller ID) press them in the
|> first place.

So what?  If Little Caesar's Pizza did deliveries, you wouldn't have to go
pick it up.  The business determines what services they will provide and the
consumer votes with his wallet.

|> How about placing the extra burden on the people who
|> want the extra service (sending Caller ID), instead?

They're paying $8.00 a month or whatever for the phone company to provide them
with extra information.  That's their "burden".  The phone company has been 
capturing your CNI for years.  Do you feel violated?  Are you also horrified
that TRW will sell your credit history for a fee?

|> And I STILL have to spend extra money to AVOID a 'service' that they
|> want to ram down my throat.

That's right.  And you're free to set up tin cans and string with your friends
and use that instead, or mail letters, or pay the phone company for the
service they choose to provide.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Why should I be tarred with the epithet 'loony', merely because I have a pet
 halibut?"
Newsgroups: tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: equality of opportunity  (was: Re: State Income Tax)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:50:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Followup-To: tx.politics,talk.politics.misc

In article <1993Jan19.165341.15682@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
|> But Porsches, caviar, and expensive private educations are luxuries.

|> Education, however, we regard as more of a necessity.  And if you aren't
|> getting one in the public schools, you should be able to get them in the
|> private schools.

You ARE getting one in the public schools.  It may not be exactly what you
want, but then you have to pay extra for caviar too.

|> No, <X> = "good education."  Which is not an outcome, but an opportunity.

They never promised you a "good" education, just an education.

|> Yes, but it isn't going to be the EvilDrugDealers and NastyJuvenileDelinquents 
|> that are going to try to go to the private schools.  It'll be those who
|> want a good education and aren't getting it.

Right.  So the public schools will end up with ONLY the EvilDrugDealers and 
NastyJuvenileDelinquents, and nobody who actually wants to learn things 
(remember, school is compulsory).  You might as well shut down the public
schools to begin with, and save yourself a whole lot of time.

|> Do what they do, right now, for universities and federal financial aid.
|> It's called accredidation.

Who's going to pay the accredidation companies?  Who's going to do regular
inspections to make sure they are actually teaching anybody anything?  Who's
going to pay for the standardized testings and criteria?  Or do we say 
"Here Mr. School owner, here's a bunch of money.  Have fun"?

|> You don't need a billion regulations.

Are you going to abolish compulsory education?  Can schools refuse to accept
people with handicaps, learning disabilities, and special needs so that they
can get an equal education?  After all, that will cut into their bottom line.
Will you have ANY regulations?  You seem to be talking out of both sides of
your mouth:  You claim that government should guarantee a level of education
for everybody, but you don't want them to have any influence over how it is
provided.

|> This isn't true, and is the one thing that *has* come out of school
|> choice and magnet school programs across the country.

Who knows?  All of these cases involve public school choice only (ie. all
of the same rules apply).  The Leander school district (I'm told) has 
public school choice.  Maybe I can get them to tell me what percentage of
students pick a different school.

|> During the 60s, white racists claimed that busing was so awful because
|> it was taking kids out of their neighborhood schools and sending them
|> clear across town.

Yeah, and a lot of NON-racists objected for the same reason.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Why should I be tarred with the epithet 'loony', merely because I have a pet
 halibut?"
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Lt. Gov Bob Bullock remarks..
Date: 22 Jan 1993 15:10:51 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan22.135746.3374@sooner.ctci.com> dewey@sooner.ctci.com (Dewey Coffman) writes:
>   The lieutenant governor faced an uproar Thursday after he said a
>state senator could get any legislation passed if she "cut her skirt
>off about six inches and put on some high heels."

So where are all the liberals who scream bloody murder when a conservative
makes a similar comment? Bullock should receive the same treatment, but
outside of the token complaint by the one feminist, I'd be willing to bet the
whole issue will get swept under the rug.
-- 
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.
    "I don't want to read poor Microsoft bashing. I want to read good
Microsoft bashing." -- Douglas A. Bell, in comp.os.os2.advocacy (Me too!)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:55:56 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

In article <1993Jan21.090439.17022@montagar.com>, davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
|> 	Hey Fred, didn't you crucify Bush because he broke the "no taxes"
|> promise while in office?  Slick wasn't even in office yet,

That was the whole point.  Clinton said he would do certain things *when he
became president*.  It's impossible to break any of these promises before he 
actually becomes president.  Now he's president.  Now you can start counting.

|> and has already
|> stated that he intends to break/reduce at least 6-7 of his promises.

Would you care to name them?

|>                 He has already said that he will not be able to reduce the
|> deficit by 50%.

You can count this promise broken if the deficit is not half of what it is
today on January 20, 1997.  Not until then.

|> He is already talking about middle-class tax increases.

Remember, he's "slick" Willie.  He said he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle
class TO PAY FOR HIS NEW PROGRAMS.  He didn't, for example, say that he 
wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class to pay for existing programs, or
to pay down the deficit.  Regardless, you can't count this promise as broken
until he actually signs a tax bill.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Why should I be tarred with the epithet 'loony', merely because I have a pet
 halibut?"
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: equality of opportunity  (was: Re: State Income Tax)
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:31:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.143712.4409@rpp386> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>
>Many catholic schools take kids FOR FREE!  In New Orleans, there are many
>"disadvantaged" kids in catholic schools.  A close friend of mine, a black
>woman I met in college, attended catholic schools while her mother was on
>welfare.  This is NOT unusual.  

So what do we need vouchers for, then?  :-)

>
>>|> Is there some study which proves this claim?  Everything that Curt Finch
>>|> has ever posted on the subject of school choice flies in the face of this.
>>
>>I read it in the American-Statesman.  Somebody somewhere did a survey.  Yeah,
>>I know, I have to start cutting these things out when I read them.
>
>Since Curt posts lots of stuff with lots of references, I tend to believe
>what Curt posts.

And of course it helps that what Curt posts agrees with you; if it
didn't, I think you'd find some reason to disregard it, too.

-- 
"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: rex@iqsc.COM (Rex Black)
Subject: Re: Against the Grain: aka Jaws II
Organization: IQ Software Corp.
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:57:09 GMT
Keywords: Taxes, Fair Share, Cut the Fat, Sarcasm

Dewey Coffman writes:
>	* Have the state use more of its office space instead of paying $92
>		Million a year to lease office space while 1.2 million square
>		feet sits empty.
>		[ Need details, sounds good, but office space for the Governor
>		 does little good if it's in Hondo, Texas. ]

Au contraire, mon frere!  I think that sending the Governor to Hondo might
indeed do quite a bit of good.  As a matter of fact, if you sent Ann to 
Hondo, and the legislators to, say, Fink or Texhoma, that might prevent a 
great deal of trouble for those of us who have to live with their 
"accomplishments".  ;-)

Rex
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Food supplies and the environment (was: Re: CFC's and the ozone layer)
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:50:03 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <1993Jan17.211520.21570@rpp386> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1993Jan16.202519.26499@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>>I think you've got the correlation reversed.  A strong agricultural
>>base may be necessary for a meat producing country, but could it be
>>that a strong agri. base is the result of a wealthy country, i.e.
>>wealthy country -> strong agri. base -> meat production?
>
>No, there are wealthy countries where meat is not a part of the diet
>for cultural reasons, and they have problems with food production.

Such as?

Actually, I was thinking over the weekend that neither is right.  As
another poster pointed out, the root cause of famine could be crazed
ruler(s) who CREATE famine in order to prevent rebellion or what have
you.

I've seen a bit of bleating in Letters to the editor about how we are
helping Somalia but ignoring Ethiopia.  Well, if memory serves
correctly, Ethiopia has been suffering a famine (which was covered
quite a bit at the beginning) for the last 4 or so years.  Funny thing
is that this famine was caused by forced re-settlements done by that
countries communist ruler.  Somalia's famine could be traced perhaps to
that country's civil war.  Any thoughts?

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner    Phone: 512/346-8380    MHS: bboerner@novell
Internet: bboerner@novell.com     \  Please use either if replying
   or  Brendan_Boerner@novell.com /  by mail exterior to Novell.
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 24 Jan 93 04:55:29 GMT
 <1993Jan21.090439.17022@montagar.com> <1993Jan22.185610.21631@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1993Jan22.185610.21631@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

> In article <1993Jan21.090439.17022@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
> >	I just hope that you use that same critical eye on Slick as you did
> >on Bush.
> 
> I am and will.  Pity you don't seem to be able to manage the same
> apologist and uncritical support.

We are waiting Fred.  So far, you have been a 100% supporter of Clinton.  No
matter how obvious Clinton's lies were, you have supported his version and
his excuses.  So, where is this "critical eye" that you claim to have for him?


> Yes, and it helps that the Bush Administration 'discovered' tens of
> billions of dollars that they somehow managed to 'miss' mentioning
> before, too.

Out of how many TRILLIONS in Federal spending?  Get real.


> No, I voted for him based on RECORD.  I will judge his performance
> using that same criterion.

What record?  Guiness Book for most successful lies in a campaign?
Oh, I forgot.  According to you, nothing he says matters anyway.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: dewey@sooner.ctci.com (Dewey Coffman)
Subject: Tobacco Protection Profits Act
Keywords: Ralph Nader, Doctors Ought to Care
Organization: CTC, Inc., Austin, TX. U.S. of A. 78757-3109
Distribution: tx
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:38:50 GMT


	From Austin American-Statesman, Jan 22, 1993
		IN SESSION, Notes on the Legislature

		Wrong Prescription, DOC says

Doctors Ought to Care is blasting a products liability reform bill
as a sham intended to shield tobacco and alcohol manufacturers from
legal liability.
	"This law would be little more that a 'Tobacco Profits Protection
Protection Act', " said Eric Solberg, executive director of the national 
health promotion group.

Joel Dunnington, a Houiston radiologist on the organization's executive
board, said that if the bill passes, "I might be sued for failing to spot
an incurable lung cancer in someone who smoked for 20 years, yet cigarette
manufactuers will get away scot-free even after they've encouraged my
patients to keep lighting up."

The measure also has been criticized by consumer advocate RALPH NADER. But
Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock has defended the bill as fair to business and consumers.
All 31 Senators have signed on as cosponsers of the measure.
				###

Hmm, this looks like a good thing to ask about at the Monday morning 
breakfast meets. Does anyone else smell a rat?

	-dewey

-- 
Dewey Coffman dewey@ctci.com  All opinions expressed are unrelated to reality.
CTC, Inc.			  "That voodoo stuff don't do nothing for me."
"If you fail to plan, plan to fail" 	PANIC: waiting for a good idea.
"He who relies on USENET as their only info source is both a fool, and idiot."
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Sunbird a la 400ci)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Date: 23 Jan 93 23:36:45 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1993Jan12.214957.57888@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
>Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
>Date: 12 Jan 93 21:49:57 GMT

>In article <exuptr.600.0@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>|> Oh get real.  The idea is not to stop the odd 1/1,000,000th accident.  Drunk 
>|> drivers kill *many* people every day.

>NON-drunk drivers kill even more people every day.  Non-drunk Non-drivers kill
>even more.  Gee, maybe the crime should be *killing* people.

Actually, not.  Drunk drivers kill more people than non-drunk drivers.  
Careful, now, I'm talking number of fatalities per drunk driver, not just 
some raw number.  But what's the difference?  We know that people who get 
behind the wheel will inevitably kill someone.  Killing people is a crime, 
acting in a way that you are much more likely to kill someone is criminal 
negligence at best.

>|> It is statistically obvious that 
>|> alcohol abuse is the cause of a very large proportion of accidents/deaths/
>|> financial loss.

>Not obvious at all.  For one thing the numbers are padded.  If you got drunk
>and jumped out in front of my car on I-35 and got killed, they would count
>that as an "alcohol-related" motor vehicle death.  This, of course, has 
>nothing to do with DWI.  Also there is no way to tell if alcohol was a 
>contributing factor in any accident, so they just assume that it always is.

Oh, sorry, I didn't know that half of the 50,000 people killed last year in 
alcohol related traffic accidents tied one on and jumped in front of a 
truck.  You're just being contradictory here.  If you're going to pick nits 
out of every bit of information there is to govern by, then you obviously 
prefer driving at night with the lights off as well, cause you don't want to 
see what you might hit.

 -----------Visit the SOUNDING BOARD BBS 214-596-2915, a Wildcat! BBS--------
 ObQuotes:
 "Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand..."
 "Ignorance and prejudice, and fear go hand-in-hand..."

    Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Lt. Gov Bob Bullock remarks..
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:32:40 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

In article <1993Jan22.135746.3374@sooner.ctci.com>, dewey@sooner.ctci.com (Dewey Coffman) writes:
|>    But Ms. Zaffirini, who was present when Bullock made the comment
|> before more than 100 people at a Texas Chamber of Commerce meeting,
|> said it was just a joke and that she wasn't offended.

You can bet that if Bullock were a Republican, all hell would have broken
loose.

|>    Karen Hughes, executive director of the Texas Republican Party,
|> said Bullock should apologize for the "blatantly sexist" remark.

I don't consider it sexist because it was directed at a specific person, not
women in general.

I don't think Judith Zaffirini could get more billed passed no matter how she
dressed.  The bills she submits are absurd, but I think Bob Bullock is an
idiot to make such a remark in public, no matter how Zaffirini feels about it.
Did he learn nothing from Clayton Williams?

Then again, Barbara Jordan got away with a blatantly sexist remark about men,
but that's "ok", because she's a woman AND a Democrat.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Why should I be tarred with the epithet 'loony', merely because I have a pet
 halibut?"
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:36:17 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc

In article <1993Jan20.160527.27726@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>In article <C1234u.1wM@kidporn.freeside.com> lcypher@kidporn.freeside.com (Louis Cypher) writes:
>>
>>Here is just a small reference that I found to one of these "studies" you
>>are allways complaining about...It was a report of the Federal Council of
>>Churches in 1925. The report states that:
>>
>>	"...the inquiry showed more drinking by young people, and
>>	 a worse attitude toward law enforcement and respect for
>>	 laws in general."
>
>It is just this kind of study that I am suggesting needs revisiting.  The
>conclusions you summarized are full of unctious platitudes. The short, 
>sweeping statement
>
>        "...the inquiry showed more drinking by young people, and
>         a worse attitude toward law enforcement and respect for
>         laws in general."
>
>is vague and tendentious and also typical of the kind of thing that might
>be said by a "blue ribbon" committee that was biased in that direction to
>begin with.  I am not accusing them of being biased, but the statement
>in itself does not mean much. The "Federal Council of Churches", which sounds
>like a forerunner of the highly politicized National Council of Churches,
>whatever it was, does not in itself lend any particular authority to the
>statement.  And their following claim, that "you cannot force your values
>and way of life onto somebody else through legislation" sounds like an
>ideological statement that may well have been held by the investigators
>from the beginning. Certainly it goes beyond the scope of the study.  How
>can a statistical study of social and behavioral patterns connected with
>alcohol and prohibition yield such a sweeping statement?

In other words, they arrived at a conclusion that you don't like, so
their study must be flawed.  Sorry that reality declines to conform to
what you would have it be, Gerry.

Let's try you on explaining just a few simple numbers, then.  Per
capita consumption of hard liquor went up during Prohibtion.  When
Prohibition ended, per capita consumption of hard liquor dropped.  Do
you have an explanation, or do you just maintain that this correlation
is coincidental because you don't want to believe the conclusion that
it leads to?

>
>Does the prohibition of the sale and possession of automatic firearms
>work?  Perhaps legalizing these (possession, not commiting crimes with
>them) might improve the attitude of our youth towards law enforcement 
>and laws in general.

Uh, you can buy and sell automatic firearms all you like.  All you
need is the license.  

-- 
"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