HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 20 Nov 1992 23:02:24 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <13281@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1ebl4hINN4ep@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
>> In article <13190@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># # 
[deleted stuff about raw fish, hence related to the follow statement].
># 
># Well it is already happening and not it the schools- sushi restuarants
># advertise on TV, magazines, newspapers, etc.  So how will you keep
># the childern safe from these sushi-nazis.
>
>You probably can't.  But I sure won't let my tax money be used to
>subsidize this sort of crap if I have any choice.  (Of course,
>liberals HATE choice.)

But you do have a choice- you simply are afraid to do what is required-
stop paying taxes and accept the consequences, or stop making money in
the traditional sense, so you don;t have to pay taxes. 

Let's get real upset now- becuase your tax monies are paying for a myriad
of thing that you probably don't want to pay for, so I am I guess.  But I
am willing to pay for a few things that I don't personally care for, so
that I can benefit for all of the others.

> 
># What about someone coming to the school to teach about anything.  There
># is a fine line here about encouraging the practice or worse traumatizing 
># kids-  don't schools encourage math, reading, writing, and don;t they
># in a subtle way traumatize the kids- detention, study hall assignment etc.
>
>Anyone that can't tell the difference between sexual practices and
>math, must have very strange homework assignments.
>

I am not talking about sexual education, where in my statement is there anything
about teaching sex or sexual orientation or sexual practices?  No where that is
just the point- stick to the argument if you can.

Your childern are being told implicitly and explicitly how to do many things.
And not all of that is taking place in the classroom, or didn't you go to school?
And you probably would not approve of all of things they are learning.

>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7348 ca.politics:9828
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: More and More of the Usual Re: The usual
Date: 23 Nov 1992 23:27:20 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Nov23.210206.1541@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1epnjhINN76s@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
>
>I started to reply, "not very likely with your display of awesome
>ignorance". Then I reflected on the abysmal state of "Higher Edukation",
>and I thought, "well, he might at that".
>

It is appears thall you do is to start to reply, then tumble quickly into
your ad hominems and strawman arguments.

How would you know about the abysmal state of "Higher Edukation"? Since you
can't spell or is this more of that Ronzone wit and satire? ;^)


>
>Over and over and over, FOA is defined in the context OF NO BLOODY
>COERCION. To say that interfering in someones desire to won slaves
>as interefence in FOA is stupid. There is NO other word for it.
>

But you didn't read my post- I outlined the conditions for the FOA that
the government wishes to take away form me.  Didn't you read it, the person
denoted as slave, wants to be my slave... wants to do everything I tell them,
wants to be under my control, wants to be owned by me... Isn't this FOA under
your defintion??????


You defined FOA as free of 'initiation of coercion'- this could
mean that I enter into a situation with someone without 'initiation of coercion'
then I or they decide to apply coercive processes to me or them after
the fact.

>[Now, the following IS an insult, just so u kan lurn the diff]:

You must learn to spell correctly. more cutesy- ;-)'s.

>
>No, given your conceptual illiteracy, I don't think you have a
>college degree -- you must have at leat 4 or 5.
>


Mr. Ronzone you are at best laughable- you spin off on tirades and name calling
with nothing of substance in defense of position that you put up for examination.
I have not seen one shred of an argument from you in defense of your philosophy
that you apparently borrowed by your own admission.  

Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation and other leftist myths (was  Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Summary: Counterpoint  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:14:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.222910.12581@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                   writes...
>In article <1992Nov20.211820.6977@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>>>There is no overpopulation problem. 
>>>People are nowhere starving as a result of overpopulation. On the
>>>contrary, increasing population is the key commerce and human
>>>advancement, generally.
> 
>>I'm sure that all those countries in Africa will be glad to hear that.
> 
>Starvation in Africa is the result of civil war, poor agricultural
>technology and drought. I don't think population is a major problem.
> 
It won't be after this year. (BTW, I believe that the poor agriculture
technology and the drought are related.)

>>>Arguments concerning the alleged population problem usually center
>>>around the myth of finite resources.
> 
>>Until someone manages to actually generate "cold Fusion" then 
>>everything in the world is finite.
> 
>Finite, but with rapidly increasing limits: Food production is, for
>example, finite. But that limit also increases rapidly with technology
>Overpopulation is only a problem if the population increases _faster_
>that the rate of production.

The problem is that it is, and it has been for quite a while. I read not
to long ago that the world supply of grain is at its lowest levels in 
several decades.
> 
>                                          Frank Crary
>                                          CU Boulder
P.S. Did you get that post on the New Deal?
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Subject: Saying something once or 100 times does not make it so
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:02:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.222815.26131@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>If you or I do something that other people consider disgusting or wrong,
>then it is totally moral for another person to shun or avoid me or not
>hire me etc.

According to you.  Others disagree.

>For example, if I was a big-time big-game hunter as a hobby, would
>PETA be wrong to not hire me for a computer job? 

Yes, IMO.

>After all, what harm have I done to them? 

Excellent point - none.

>Yet, as they would find my hobby most upsetting,
>it would be torture for them to be forced to hire me.

Too bad for them.  Some of my current hobbies might upset some of my employers
as we speak.  At my company, we haven't yet been convinced of the ultimate 
wisdom of letting irrelevant things like this dictate our hiring practices.
Your company may be different, I have no idea.

Clayton loves to repeat unsubstantiated claims over and over regarding
gays.  You also love to repeat over and over and over again "It is
totally moral to discriminate...", apparently in the belief that either
we haven't heard that this is your opinion, or in the belief that
some of us will just cry "Uncle" at hearing it pronounced as Truth by
you so often and accept it.

We will not.

Get it?

jb
============================================================================
It is hard to imagine many things more irrelevant than whether Phil Ronzone
believes Gennifer Flowers.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7356 ca.politics:9836
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Saying something once or 100 times does not make it so
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:21:32 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov20.195210.13197@pb2esac.uucp>, jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:
> What appears to be going on hear is the "Open The Floodgates"
> arguments.  They go something like this:
> 
> From the Right:
> 
> "Heaven forbid that we should *ever* tell *anyone* or *any* employer
> that firing a gay/black/etc person for reasons irrelevant to their
> job performance is bad, because this would Open The Floodgates for 
> [ pick your favorite absurd and extreme scenario here: "force a day-care 
> center to employ convicted sex-offenders", "force you to have sex with 
> Bill Dannemeyer", "Force you to hire a cat-torturer", "Have Big Brother 
> tell you everything you can do", bla, bla, bla ]

But this is the result.  I have no desire to abolish EEO laws.
But the courts in California have ruled recently that either ALL
EEO laws have to be repealed, or homosexuals HAVE to be included
in them.  With a choice like this, I guess my only alternative is
to push for repeal of EEO laws, and hope that our society has
improved enough that the original racial hatred that provoked
those laws, have gone away.

I resent being forced to choose whether all EEO laws go away, or
homosexuals get included as a protected minority.

> jb


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Overpopulation and other leftist myths (was  Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:45:15 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <BxyExr.4I1@lincoln.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
    >There is no overpopulation problem.
    >
    >People are nowhere starving as a result of overpopulation. On
    >the contrary, increasing population is the key commerce and
    >human advancement, generally.
    >
    >Arguments concerning the alleged population problem usually
    >center around the myth of finite resources. Nothing could be
    >further from the truth. As Juliam Simon as amply
    >demonstrated, every resource of signifance, from metals to
    >food stuffs, has decreased in price over the last century.
    >And, of course, when you consider other sources of human
    >wealth such as knowledge and skill, the finite resources
    >argument crumbles even further.
    >
    >Of course, those who push the population problem usually have
    >an agenda which requires it. For example, many leftists are
    >weded to the idea of controlling population because it is a
    >convenient bridge to controlling people, generally.
    >
    >Do your part for the human race. Have as many kids as you can
    >afford. Teach them to acquire and defend wealth through
    >peaceful commerce with their fellow man.
    >
    >(Except for you leftist socialists out there. You people
    >should definitely refrain from propogating yourselves.)

Absolutely right!

Anyone flying in an airplane over the continental U.S. basically
can see this very fact for themselves. We could give everybody
1 square meter of standing space, and park thje entire damn
population on the Island of Zanzibar (thanks to John Brunner for
pointing this out).

Pro-capitalist (in major chunks at least) like Singapore, Israel,
Malaysia, Korea (S.), Thailand have shown how overpopulated
"poor" countries can become rich and productive.

Socialist nightmares like India and the ex-USSR show the inverse.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7162 ca.politics:9595 talk.politics.misc:60412
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Making it clear (was- Hmmm I don't remember)
Keywords: Bogus concepts about gays, jews, everybody.
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:02:00 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Nov16.174133.15779@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>1. Anti-semitism is based on lies. To dislike Jews because of the
>   anti-semitic incorrect propaganda is irrational.
>
 
I wonder about this statement and its implications, we can only hope that it is
another example of poor sentence structure.

>You posted above-

>To dislike Jews because of the anti-semitic incorrect propaganda is irrational.

So can I surmise or derive that there exist 'correct propaganda' to be used
for anti-semitic purposes?

Besides I am free to dislike Jews because of somethings they do.  Maybe I don't
like their religious viewpoint. Maybe I don't like Matzo bread (and yes you are
right I don't have to eat it). Maybe I don't like the way the handle their
countries affairs internally and externally.  So it seems that I can generate 
reasons to dislike anyone for any reason I believe to be valid.

>2. Dislike of homosexuals is based on reality -- most people do not like
>   what homosexuals do (and are).
>

Most people do not like what homosexuals do?  Who are most people?  Most people
probably could not tell you what homosexuals do ( if you mean in terms of sex)
and what they are (this shouldn't be hard, they are like everyone else).  

Gay people eat, sleep, drive cars, mail letters, hold jobs, buy houses, ride
bikes, play sports, serve in the military, go to movies, eat at restuarants,
etc. etc.

Now from a slant perspecitve, I can tell you what heterosexuals do- rape, molest,
destory, have childern they can't or don't take care of, cheat people, rob people,
kill people, abuse people,  etc. etc. (as the King of Siam said).  So now I may
conclude that MOST people do not like these activities and that most of these
activities are done by heterosexuals, therefore my loathing, hatred, disgust of
of heterosexual people is based on reality.

IMHO there seems to be a large problem here with the concept of reality.  Or at
least who is in what reality when.

Or is it just sentence structure and the inability to get the message across in 
the way you meant it?
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7145 talk.politics.misc:60351 alt.politics.elections:23902 co.politics:2060 alt.politics.clinton:17241 alt.politics.democrats.d:567
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:54:21 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Xxdate: Mon, 16 Nov 92 09:50:58 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12

In article <1992Nov14.175616.4038@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> Frank Crary,
fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.220346.24456@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J.
LaFave 
><lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>>The problem is not lazy poor folks, the problem is lack of opportunity
>>and misconceptions like the ones stated by the previous poster.
>
>Could you please explain, then, how people who "lack opportunity" and beg
>for change, can eat with some frequency in $7/meal resturants (when 
>equally filling means are available close by for half that)?

Are you using a single example or are you suggesting every welfare
recipient has money falling out of their pockets? I have been in their
homes and have seen how they live. I think not. There is abuse of the
system, but that does not invalidate the need.

>
>>Furthermore, if you think the social problems will just go away
>>because you choose to ignore them or deny their nature, you are in
>>for a rude awakening...
>
>I don't think anyone is suggestion we ignore the problem.

The problem has been ignored for 12 years. It has been clear for years
that
entitlement programs needed revamping. The radical left and the radical
right are both to blame for the lack of change.

>The question
>is simply _how_ to deal with it. There is a great difference between
>providing opportunities for those in need, and freely giving out
>benifits to people, regardless of how much or little effort they
>are making to help themselves.

I agree.

That is why I am so adamantly opposed to the present entitlement programs
which treat the symptoms but rarely treat the disease. We need job
training, subsidized day care, workfare, school breakfast programs, family
councelling, drug treatment and education---progressive programs which
which give the poor a helping hand up, not a life preserver to keep their
heads above water. This has been one of the central themes of Clinton's
domestic plan and is one of the many reasons I support him.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: The World
	<1992Nov14.015824.991@pony.Ingres.COM>
	<1992Nov16.180637.1051@claven.ucar.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:45:52 GMT


>I think it's just as valid to say that if the government weren't removing
>such a large chunk of our incomes (47%) ahead of time, by use of force,
>then we'd have more money to contribute to private charities, and the
>private charities wouldn't be in such distress. I bet the private charities
>would do a better job of helping the needy than the government is doing
>with our money, too.

Very dramatic and psuedo-logical, however about $100B of the $1.5T
goes to direct aid to the poor. That's about 7% (rounded up) of the
federal budget, so 3% of your income? How many people here who make,
say, $40K or around $770/wk, upon finding out that their salaries have
increased $23/week would suddenly feel a philanthropic swell in their
hearts and donate it all (most? half? any?) to charity?

I think most people would use most of it for selfish (not in the
negative sense) purposes and really not give the whole matter much
thought. $23/wk raise? Great, now I can eat out a coupla more times
per week...

We can quibble the figures, feel free, but at least re-do the plug and
grind arithmetic for us all and let's see if it really feels
convincing. I doubt doubling or trebling that figure would change most
people's hearts by much.

That's one problem, parkinson's law, until a person is very wealthy
they tend to increase their lifestyle standards to match their
salaries. Particularly if they think the next fellow is doing the
same.

One advantage of the current system is that at least everyone should
feel like they're giving as much (proportionately) as the next fellow
(obviously not every fellow, but most of their co-workers etc.)

That is why Churches and Mosques have historically tithed people based
on their salary, so everyone knew everyone else was giving their fair
share. It's important to people.

It also assumes we could cut that figure back to zero, I doubt that
also.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7280 ca.politics:9729
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:29:03 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <13250@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Look, there's no point in arguing with a fool.  

I disagree, which is why I'm still arguing with you.  The point is to
make it abundantly clear to anyone who might read this that your
statistical claims are bogus, misleading, and irrational.  I want it
to be clear to you, too.  You can feel however you want about
homosexuals, but don't believe that the numbers are on your side.

>That 30% of child molestation is done by homosexuals and bisexuals is
>well-established.

1) How is this established?  By counting "homosexuals" and "bisexuals"
   after the child molestation has been discovered?  Statistically
   suspect right there, Clayton.  Perhaps they are discovered at
   different rates.  Without that, this means nothing.

2) Per capita, this means what?  Without %-of-pop for homo and bi,
   this means nothing.

3) You apparently feel free to use the definition of homo and bi that
   best suits your case, and you have not demonstrated that different
   studies used the same definition, or (in one case) even what that
   definition was.  Without precise and consistent definitions, this
   means nothing.

4) You also confuse victims and criminals -- using an interpretation
   of your own numbers that is most favorable to your case, it is still
   evident that it is less likely that a given gay man is a child
   molestor than a given homosexual man is a child molestor.  (Yes,
   it appears that those very few men who molest boys do so at a
   horrifying rate -- that's why there are so many victims.  Perhaps
   it would be better to concentrate on finding the criminal few.)

I think that bashing all members of any group because of the sins of a
few is unjust (especially since the criminal portion is even smaller
in the case of homosexuals -- if you choose to discriminate, it is
more likely that you are discriminating against an innocent person).
I suspect that there are more effective ways to reduce child abuse,
too.  I also find it interesting that you choose to focus on a group
of this size (a larger group might be "all men", for instance --
that's a lot more than 30% of molestations right there, for instance).

Foam on, Clayton.  I assume we'll be treated to conspiracy theories
next.

David Chase
Sun
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: wayne@ultra.com (Wayne Hathaway)
Subject: Re: Don't blame me, I voted....
Reply-To: wayne@ultra.com (Wayne Hathaway)
Organization: Ultra Network Technologies
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 00:07:02 GMT

> +  When... [ the usual post-election whining ]... don't blame me - 
> +  I voted Republican.
> +  When the schools teach African History and Indian History, but
>                                               ^^^^^^
> +  not American History, don't blame me - I voted Republican.
         ^^^^^^^^
> Unless this letter-writer was referring to the "Indians" from India,
> the above statement is particularly telling.

Yes, it is "telling" that the original poster is not Politically
Correct (tm).  But unless I am very mistaken, I believe that is one of
the points he was trying to make!

    Wayne Hathaway               domain: wayne@Ultra.COM
    Ultra Network Technologies     uucp: ...!ames!ultra!wayne
    101 Daggett Drive             phone: 408-922-0100 x132
    San Jose, CA 95134              FAX: 408-433-9287

Xref: sparky ba.politics:7324 ca.politics:9792