HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Check your facts before posting, Phil
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:04:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.001957.17461@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >
    >
    >>That Democratic judge in NY that sent the murder threat to an
    >>ex-lover, sexually nasty notes to her daughter, and condoms
    >>to her son, and made the threating sick phone calls, HE gets
    >>sympathy, including a comment from Ed Koch about paying
    >>"attention to [the man's] accomplishments" and to "not let
    >>this [scandal] besmirch his reputation".
    >>
    >This is false. The judge is not a Democrat, but a Republican.
    >Explain that one, Phil.

Sol Wachtler, subject of a Wall Street Journal article that pointed out a
striking double standard in sex harassment judgements, is indeed a
Republican. The WSJ article did not state his political affiliation.

As I believe that both Democrats and Republicans are the "same" I do
not make much of the distinction.

Rather than use the WSJ differentiation (after all WSJ editorial policy is
to accept convential ruling political systems), I should have distinguished
between the Politically Correct people, of which Sol Wachtler is one,
versus the non-PC, such as Clarence Thomas.

Sol has the support of such Democratic liberals as Governor Mario Cuomo
who said "that no matter what the judge had done, it was a narrow
aberration".

What Wachtler did was much worse than Packwood. And also, the charges against
Wachtler are recent, as in months ago, not decades old (a party in 1973???).

Other PC names that "got off" include Congressman Gerry Studds (seducing
teenage conggressional page) and Congresmman Barney Frank (male prostitue
doing business out of Frank's house).

Now of course, it also very un-PC of me to somehow think that kissing
a woman on the cheek is less worse that seducing teenage pages, keeping malke
prostitutes, running your car off a bridge and leaving a young female
"companion" to drown, or just having several different women a day in the White
House.

Silly old me.

So ignore the political labels Maddi -- let's just look at it as the
PC .vs. non-PC wars.

    >
    >>Striking double standard here.
    >>
    >On your part, yes.

Yeah, one guy kisses women (and propositions them), another abandons his
young lover to drown and then tries to lie about to police.

One is asked to resign, theb other is relected many times.

WHICH ONE IS WHICH HERE? Kiss a women, lose your office. Commit manslaughter
and lie about it, get relected.

What a double standard indeed.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: More Child Molestors for Christ
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:39:12 GMT

San Jose Mercury News, Page A1, below the masthead story:

TWO S.J. PASTORS CHARGED WITH MOLESTING BOYS

Took place over the last four years.  One pastor was
married, the other not.  The church was Jubille
Christian Center, the largest church in the county.
Same lovable bunch of fundies who brought us the
Satanic Child Abuse Scares.  I believe this
phenomenon is called "projection."

Interestingly enough, the church recently began a
"New Beginnings" ministry to convince homosexuals
to change their lifestyles.  Also, the church was
one of several signatories to a letter to SJ school
districts accusing them of promoting homosexual
"propaganda."

My advice to these fine citizens is the same as my advice 
to Messrs. Cramer and Ronzone: Clean your own house first.  
It's *much* filthier than anything outside.

I also await Mr. Cramer's demand that all churches be
closed because so many child molestors are among the
clergy.  This is real, Mr. Cramer.  If you care about
abused kids, then make a fuss about the people *really*
doing the abusing, not your personal bogeymen.


-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7817 talk.politics.misc:64879
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Are they not men?
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:36:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Dec16.213058.16769@udel.edu>, carroll@bifur.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
> In article <13647@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> ]In article <104863@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> ]] In article <1992Dec14.052336.14122@netcom.com]
# ]] Indeed. There were over a hundred reports of sexual misconduct during the
# ]] Gulf War. Only four were homosexual, and three of those were consensual
# ]] acts.
# ]
# ]Of course.  Homosexuals aren't inducted, and are separated from the
# ]service when discovered.  Next you will surprise us with the very
# ]low number of females in the military going AWOL.  No more than
# ]4% of the general population is homosexual.  In the military, it's
# ]doubtless much lower.  Do you think it's even .4% of the military
# ]is homosexual?  In that case, 4 homosexual misconducts out of 100
# ]total is nothing to brag about -- quite the opposite.
# 
# Sorry, Clayton.
# 
# First, according to the studies that YOU YOURSELF have posted,
# homosexuals are NOT LESS THAN 4% of the population, and you have
# *never* posted any information that could place an upper bound on the
# number of gays in the general population.

Not true.  What I have posted shows that homosexuals are no MORE
than 4% of men, and probably less than 4% of women.

# Second, the number of gays in the military is a complete unknown. Any
# number you use to represent the supposed percentage of gays in the
# military is completely your own creation, based on no information
# whatsoever. You can draw no conclusions from such numbers - they're
# nonsense.
# 
# || Mark Craig Carroll: <MC#     ||"Don't try to tell me there's no reason

You mean, the very stuff they ask during entry into the armed forces,
and the rules they have for kicking out homosexuals, and the illegal
sweeps that military police do of gay bars, checking IDs, do 
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reduce the number of homosexuals in the armed
forces?

I made no claim that I knew what percentage of the armed forces
were homosexual.  I pointed out that it's unlikely to be as high
as the general population.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Sauce for the goose...
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:22:06 GMT
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.

In article <1gj8kqINNp94@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
=In article <1992Dec9.030210.14730@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
=>
=>O.K. you ignorant jerk, here is a question for you.
=
=You may point out to a person that you feel they are incorrect or wrong
=in their facts but to go around calling names is derogatory.

And this from the person (Phil) who bursts into tears when someone uses 
the word "strayt"...
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Check kiting in Congress
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:17:17 GMT

In article <92345.31452.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>Suppose my father wanted to help me get into a new home, and floats me a
>$250,000 loan at 2% interest.  Now, it *should* be our business.  However, the
>IRS may say that (a) the prevailing market rate is at least (say) 7% and (b)
>the 5% I save is taxable.  At the very least, it will not allow me to deduct
>the 2% interest paid because it isn't at the prevailing market rate.  The
>provision in the tax code is complex, and I know I haven't precisely explained
>it.  But it is true that transactions involving less-than-market interest
>rates are subject to special laws regarding taxation.

This probably isn't the best example since I would argue that the
difference between the 2% your dad was charging you and market rates
constituted a gift - not income.  As long as your father hadn't made
any other gifts to you that year, you should still be under the $10,000
gift exemption.

A better example would be the case of an employer who offers an employee
a similar loan (employers sometimes do this in California to offset the
high cost of relocating here).  In that case, the difference would be
taxable as income (and the employee would probably be better off if the
employer just paid him the money - since he would only be able to deduct
the interest portion).

>It's ridiculous and intrusive rules like those which made me a Libertarian...

Although these rules are ridiculous, they are really pretty straightforward
compared to a lot of other things in the tax code.

Guido
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Check your facts before posting, Phil
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:02:49 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Dec19.230457.26712@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.001957.17461@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >
>    >
>    >>That Democratic judge in NY that sent the murder threat to an
>    >>ex-lover, sexually nasty notes to her daughter, and condoms
>    >>...

>    >This is false. The judge is not a Democrat, but a Republican.
>    >Explain that one, Phil.
>
>Sol Wachtler, subject of a Wall Street Journal article that pointed out a
>striking double standard in sex harassment judgements, is indeed a
>Republican. The WSJ article did not state his political affiliation.
>
>
[red herring material deleted]

>So ignore the political labels Maddi -- let's just look at it as the
>PC .vs. non-PC wars.
>
>    >
>    >>Striking double standard here.
>    >>
>    >On your part, yes.
>
>What a double standard indeed.
>
>

Phil- you couldn't simply state that you were wrong if your life
depended on it.  You made a hasty judgement (not uncommon) and 
labelled someone.  Then when your error is pointed out, you go
off on the Great Red Herring diversion.  You were wrong period!

Why not state that and get it over with.  I have spotted many
things and pointed them out, but you refuse to acknowledge ever
being wrong, because you think that you are always right...

So here are you favorite Red Herrings.

PC
Nazi
Facist
Coercive
Name Calling.

So why don't you cook one of herrings and eat it.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7765 ca.politics:10386
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Are they not men?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:41:00 GMT

In article <1go5pmINN8op@copland.crhc.uiuc.edu> pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan) writes:
>Hot Young Star writes:
>> Indeed. There were over a hundred reports of sexual misconduct during the
>> Gulf War. Only four were homosexual, and three of those were consensual
>> acts.

>Clayton Cramer writes:
>> [predictable pseudo-math deleted]
>> In that case, 4 homosexual misconducts out of 100
>> total is nothing to brag about -- quite the opposite.

Nahhh.  That's insulting pseudo-mathematicians.  It's Clayton-math.  It
involves (1) making up a statistic (2) citing a study which proves that
this statistic is wrong, but claiming that the study proves the
statistic (3) Dividing incorrectly (4) Making a few false assumptions
(5) Insulting all gay people based on this Clayton-math.

>Clayton, you just can't *stand* it when *anyone* says *anything* nice 
>about gays, can you?  But you're not prejudiced or anything, really.

>The poster makes a valid point: with Tailhook, we began to notice and think
>about the long tradition of heterosexual hijinks the services have always
>had a reputation for.  

>Unlike men who simply love other men, men harassing women are practicing 
>NON-consensual assault.  And it's a longstanding tradition in the service,
>considerably more widespread than homosexuality.

>It's contradictory and hypocritical to go on gay witch-hunts for people who
>haven't bothered anyone, but to ignore the completely unacceptable and 
>offensive behavior of your straight servicemen.

>[Cramer parody mode on] 

>In fact, given the fact that straight servicemen are statistically MUCH more 
>likely to harass women sexually than gay servicemen, I favor discriminating 
>against straight men in hiring for the military!

>[Cramer parody mode off]

Come on.  That isn't like Cramer at all.  Straight men are always good.

Try:
The solution to that problem is to discriminate against the women, of
course.  If they weren't trying to get into the military and prove their
worth, there wouldn't be so much resentment against the women and these
things wouldn't happen.  It's their fault.  And you, for defending them,
just demonstrate typical female incoherence and mental instability.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Are they not men?
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:52:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.221302.13988@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>To wit:
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Gays in the Military? A Cautionary Tale  WSJ, December (8?) 1992
>
>By KEVIN M. MCCRANE
>
>Bill Clinton's desire to lift the ban on homosexuals in the 
>military brings to mind a troubling incident from my own military 
>experience more than a generation ago.

Long story of how he and several other recruits were sexually
harrassed and assaulted aboard a Navy ship.

The obvious implication of this story is that if homosexuals are
allowed to be "out" in the military, then large numbers of straight
men in the military are going to be sexually assaulted and harrassed.

I don't buy it.  First off, I have a hard time believing the story.
My grandfather was an Inspector General in Naval Intelligence
during WWII and the Korean war.  Back then, if it was discovered
that you were a homosexual they didn't just kick you out like
they do now, you were court-marshalled.  The best thing that 
could happen was a dis-honorable discharge, and very likely you
would spend time in jail.  These Petty officers were being awfully
cavalier for people taking that kind of risk.

Second, even if I accept that the story is true, what this story
indicates is NOT that homosexuals shouldn't be in the Navy, but
that the commanding officer on that ship should have been relieved
of duty.  He was allowing his men to be assualted by other men under
his command.  Clearly a gross failure of leadership.  What if
instead of straight men it had been black sailors being assaulted,
or jewish sailors ?  Would that be a reason to exclude whites or gentiles
from the Navy ?

Guido
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: What really counts in a marriage
Date: 10 Dec 92 21:13:35 GMT
Organization: Memes-R-Us
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) babbles:


>You made a blanket and very PC(tm) statement that asserted humor about
>people's appearance is not humor.
>
>You are wrong.

Labelling it PC is not sufficient, by itself, to make it wrong, Ronzo-babe.


>Comedy shows of all types, including all black and all women shows, use
>the humor of all kinds of appearences, from clothing to physical appeal.
>
>They also include (you might want to cover your eyes), the religion,
>sexual preference, race, sex, disablities, and more, of people.

I have heard humor defined as 'an interrupted defense reaction'. IE, some-
-one tells a joke about someone in a bad position, you identify with that
person, and then the gag line interrupts your sense of identification - and
you laugh in reaction, out of relief that it is not a true situation.

On one level - the 'Collected <insert Minority here> Jokes' mindset - this
may be very profitable, and it may make for good formulaic comedy, but it
evaluates to lifting everyone else's spirits at the expense of the minority
being depicted for everyone's amusement.

This leaves a residue behind, in the minds of the audience of your joke(s) -
a residue which might be called 'insensitivity'.

				-=*=-

From personal experience, I _know_ that there is another form of humor that
one can use to enjoy life, and that is to laugh at oneself, to present one's
failures and foibles for the amusement and education of one's listeners, to
share with one's audience the lessons one has learned through experience.

This isn't great stage comedy, and doesn't make big bux ... but it might be
considered one of the central parts of human culture. Humor is, after all, a
fairly common human behavior.

				-=*=-

Taking this all into account, I'd say your defense of humor by means of
lowering the self-images of others, is pathetic, if not corrupted. If you
can find no better way to raise your spirits than to lower others', you
really have a lot of work to do.



>If you don't like it, fine. I don't think the net cares much about just
>your singualr opinion on this.
>
>To make a blanket and sweeping statement like you did, well, you deserved
>to be punctured, because not only are you wring, but sneeringly (IMHO)
>Politically Correct(tm). Don't feel too bad about the last two items,
>they often correlate in the 90th percentile.

Just wanted to leave some of your babble in for people to marvel at.


-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7769 talk.politics.misc:64537
From: pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Are they not men?
Date: 16 Dec 1992 15:07:02 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: copland.crhc.uiuc.edu

Hot Young Star writes:
> Indeed. There were over a hundred reports of sexual misconduct during the
> Gulf War. Only four were homosexual, and three of those were consensual
> acts.

Clayton Cramer writes:
> [predictable pseudo-math deleted]
> In that case, 4 homosexual misconducts out of 100
> total is nothing to brag about -- quite the opposite.

Clayton, you just can't *stand* it when *anyone* says *anything* nice 
about gays, can you?  But you're not prejudiced or anything, really.

The poster makes a valid point: with Tailhook, we began to notice and think
about the long tradition of heterosexual hijinks the services have always
had a reputation for.  

Unlike men who simply love other men, men harassing women are practicing 
NON-consensual assault.  And it's a longstanding tradition in the service,
considerably more widespread than homosexuality.

It's contradictory and hypocritical to go on gay witch-hunts for people who
haven't bothered anyone, but to ignore the completely unacceptable and 
offensive behavior of your straight servicemen.

[Cramer parody mode on] 

In fact, given the fact that straight servicemen are statistically MUCH more 
likely to harass women sexually than gay servicemen, I favor discriminating 
against straight men in hiring for the military!

[Cramer parody mode off]

-- 
Paul Ryan                  (pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu)     1308 West Main St.
Center for Reliable High-Performance Computing     Urbana, IL 61801
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign         (217) 244-7179
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Solid Proof- Phil R. is anti-gay! (was Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Summary: This is the most solid statement I have seen.
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:55:07 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Dec19.123408.4529@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>And I have said
>more than once that both homosexuality and celibacy (as in the Catholic
>church) are unnatural aspects of human behaviour -- and IMHO, rather
>sad and sick ones at that.
>
>
Well here it is- finally the actual statement that nails down Phil
Ronzone's 'humble' opinion about gays-  'sad and sick'.  This from
one of the most "civilized" men on the network.

It is good to now know the real truth and feeling behind postings 
involving gay people from Phil.

Phil, do you care to now bring forth your unrefutable facts and basis
for homosexuality being an unnatural aspect of human behavior.  This
is a tough one, since natural is misused and abused constantly.  Make
sure that you include the scope of your definitions, since they tend
to be your definitions.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7786 talk.politics.misc:64665
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Are they not men?
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:16:04 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: usa
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Dec17.084100.11589@Princeton.EDU>
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>In article <1go5pmINN8op@copland.crhc.uiuc.edu>
pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan) writes:

>>[Cramer parody mode on] 
>>In fact, given the fact that straight servicemen are statistically MUCH more 
>>likely to harass women sexually than gay servicemen, I favor discriminating 
>>against straight men in hiring for the military!
>>[Cramer parody mode off]

To which David responds with his own parody:
>Try:
>The solution to that problem is to discriminate against the women, of
>course.  If they weren't trying to get into the military and prove their
>worth, there wouldn't be so much resentment against the women and these
>things wouldn't happen.  It's their fault.  And you, for defending them,
>just demonstrate typical female incoherence and mental instability.

BZZZT. Wrong again.

That's definitely Ted Kaldis.

Even Clayton Cramer wouldn't stoop THAT low.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:13:30 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <1992Dec16.183848.24213@igor.tamri.com>, Don Baldwin writes:

>(Gun control-related philosophies and voting strategies deleted)

>I realize that I've strayed a bit from responding to the exact questions
>raised in your post but, while Clayton and I disagree vehemently on some
>issues (but agree on gun-related issues), I have neither the time nor the
>inclination to engage in Clayton-bashing.  There are just too many interesting
>posts in alt.religion.santaism that I need to respond to.

What?  There's a Usenet group which worships some fat guy who goes around in a
red suit hanging out with reindeer?   :-)


Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
Microsoft Windows--from the folks who brought you EDLIN.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc