HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Subject: Re: Cable TV: Disorganized Crime, Was: Re: dangerous group
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:19:13 GMT

In article <lkh6nvINN10t@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.212234.14909@netcom.com> altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay) writes:
>>
>>OK.  Let me know when you figure out how to get AMC and other worthwhile
>>cable stations through the TV antenna.  I didn't get cable in order to save
>>going up on the roof.
>
>You can buy a vcr and rent movies.  That's what I do.  Unless you watch
>a lot of movies, this scheme is less than a year's worth of premium
>channels.  (If you do watch a lot of movies, you should worry about how
>you're spending your time.)
>

I have a VCR.  Much of the stuff shown on stations like AMC are not
available at video stores, at least not at the places I've seen.
I do watch a lot of movies, more than most people, I'm sure.  I also
have other interests, and I am involved in social concerns.  I don't
have to justify how I spend my time, thanks.



-- 
John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
===============================================================
There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Why Do We Have Separate Restrooms? (WAS Re: Gays, the military...)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 19:20:03 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb
Summary: Teaching Phil statistical methods again

>In article <lkn69lINN9lh@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham) writes:
> > You, however, presented the case of the professional athletes
> > and tried to generalize that evidence to the rest of the
> > population. Yet you presented no proof or argument that his
> > sample was generalizeable.

In article <1993Jan10.061116.4254@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> Why should it be needed?

You need to show/prove that this sample is "generalizeable" because it
is not a random sample of the population.  The standard statistical
assumption is that the only generalizable sample is a random sample.

> I know of nothing relevant to make it NOT generalizable. The superior
> physical ability of athletes is the only difference I can see.

Perhaps you aren't looking hard enough for differences (much as a
software developer might not look hard enough or creatively enough for
his own bugs).  Perhaps you don't have enough information (I assumed
that you'd done a thorough statistical study on the attirbutes of
professional football players and the general population, given the
air of authority with which you speak.)

David Chase
Sun
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: ba.politics DRINKING GAME!
Summary: Harness the heat from the kitchen
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:21:41 GMT

Read the articles in ba.politics from your favorite newsreader.
TAKE A DRINK whenever:

Clayton Cramer mentions NAMBLA.
Phil Ronzone changes the subject.
More than 15 articles follow-up the perpetual "why don't homosexuals
  denounce NAMBLA" thread.
Clay Cramer posts messages from soc.motss to ba.politics.
Phil Ronzone says something is PC.
Phil Ronzone says the point is FOA.
A newbie complains that it's getting too hot.
Anyone complains that an issue has nothing to do with the Bay Area.
A regular's name appears in an insulting subject line.


You must NOT DRINK if one of the following happens:

Phil Ronzone admits he made a mistake.
  RESUME DRINKING when he makes the same mistake again.

A scientific study or abstract is posted.
  RESUME DRINKING when it is misinterpreted.

Someone posts something sensible.
  RESUME DRINKING when it is twisted by the regulars.

PENALTIES:

If you don't take a drink when you should have, you must
not post for one week.

If you take a drink when you shouldn't have, you must not
post or read the group for one week.

If you violate either of these two rules, you must reply
to everything Phil posts with at least as many words, for
a minimum of two weeks.

THE WINNER:

The last one to unsubscribe from the group is the LOSER.
Get it?

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                       |  The Truth is still The Truth, forsooth 
madhaus@netcom.com                   |  Even if believing It you refuse
Centigram Communications Corp        |  Complete disproof's uncouth and moot
San Jose California  408/428-3553    |  A Fundie's brain is dead.

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Sounds like Democracy to me. (Was Re: Well, even Adolph had to start at thge bottom ...
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:31:33 GMT

In article <1ici9tINNnfh@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
    >>So a proper and legitimate VOTE is the same as check
    >>bouncers, sexual harassers, sexual misconduct?
    >>
    >>
    >Well if we look at politics in general this may be true- but
    >I am at a loss as to how you make this connection, I did not
    >make a connection between proper/legitimate vote and check
    >bouncers etc.- I was making a point that elected officials do
    >not act in ways that we would approve of, after their
    >election.
    >
    >>Was this a Soviet "vote"? Was Andy only supposed to mark the
    >>"CORRECT" item on the ballot? And the fact that he checked
    >>the Politically Incorrect box makes him the same as a, say,
    >>sexual harasser?

Well, he apparently was relected twice, the last two times with the
biggest vote ever, so I'd say he was in all likelyhood voting as he
promised.

After all, a self described conservative and Republican would almost
predictable NOT vote to kick ROTC off campus.

Right?


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Sounds like Democracy to me. (Was Re: Well, even Adolph had to start at thge bottom ...
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:30:34 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan6.025726.1715@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1icjtmINNnsn@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
>    >I need to know and understand what his first year of voting
>    >was like. He may have, in your terms, voted PC all of the
>    >time, as least appeared to do so. But now in his second term,
>    >he has made some changes in his voting and it was not as he
>    >advertised. This is a completely believable scenario.
>
>As a conservative and Republican, his votes made sense. Note that he is
>subject to this action NOT because of claims of voting not per his
>campaign promises, but because his votes, legal, legitimate votes,
>were deemed politically incorrect.

Why?  just because someone places themselves in a category- they do not
necessary vote on issues squarely based on their ideological bent.
Many things are bargained for, or maybe the particular issue has merit
on it's own.  Maybe it has no partisan slant to it.

Is protection and help for sexual harassment victims a partisan issue?

>
>You still have NO other facts, right? Just a lot of what if.

And you have purported facts- based upon several layers of transmission.
I do not simply take a newspaper article and call it the 'gospel' truth.
One has to see and understand what they are reading to make an analysis.

>And in any case, it still is legal to directly quote something on something
>they never ever said, if you have "reasonable belief" that it is something
>they may have said. Although I think the USC is reviewing that again.
>Pretty outrageous, eh?

You mean 'legal' but of course not 'moral'.  That is exactly how stories 
start and become corrupted.  Someone makes a quote of what they think somewhat
said- then someone else takes that and makes the statement that this is
a quote of what really happened, so forth and so on.

In a court of law this may be a useful tool- but in a newspaper, it is 
dangerous.  And it is not up to a press source to surmise what may be the
case- they are to report the facts and let the reader decide what is happening.
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Is this wrong, or what?
Date: 7 Jan 1993 17:38:39 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <13826@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Consider the choices:
>
>1. Commit suicide, and let everyone assume that you had something to
>be ashamed of, or,
>
>Sorry, but someone who takes #1 as a choice, is telling me that he
>knows he doesn't stand a chance at trial.  I certainly wouldn't use
>suicide as proof of guilt for purposes of governmental action, but
>for the sort of individual moral judgments we make every day, it's
>sufficient.
>

No- someone who takes choice #1 has many problems and many stresses
in their life, to the point where the see no way out for themselves
emotionally and mentally.  He either fell deeply into depression and
self hate- he may have tried to get someone attention about his
situation and been ignored, or he may have bottled it until it 
imploded on him.

>> has taken on a witch-hunt mentality with regard to child molestation
>> to such an extent that the mere threat of *arrest* can drive a man to
>> suicide, if that was indeed what happened.  I am also not prepared to
>
>Odd.  Lots of people are charged with child molestation, and fight
>it out in court.  For example, the former San Clara County Supervisor
>who was accused, and later found innocent.  Oh yes, messy divorce
>proceedings were involved.
>

Of course, you are obviously unaware of many of the cases where it 
has been found that false accusations were filed by childern and
adults.  We live in funny times, it is now possible for everyone to
derive multi interpretations of media stories about subjects such
as this.  It is very important that when a case of molestation arises
that it does not become a media trail.  It must be handles by those
who are qualified to investigate and concluded what has happened.
Or are we reverting to the old 'witch-hunt' 'communist-hunt' that
has plagued rational thought in the past?

>Of course not.  You aren't outraged about child molestation.  WHAT
>IN THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?  You must not know any of the victims
>of this sort of thing.
>

That may be correct that he doesn't know any victims- so does that mean
he should believe any story presented to him.  As for me it is the same
thing- don't assume anything about anything until the facts can give
solid support to the claim. I have known cases of accusation that 
turned out to be false.

In the meantime, train and teach your childern and others on how to best
avoid these situations.  And we must try and make sure that people with
this desire are given the opportunity to seek and recieve treatment.  Putting
people in jail for a given time without any help, will probably come out
and do it all over again.

>> --James Preston
>
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: For those that care enough to read the very best
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:37:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.000936.20281@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
    >>For those that care: A correction from sloppy editing. A
    >>woman who is leading an effort to recall Packwood ran against
    >>him in 1986 and supported the liberal congressman whom
    >>Packwood just defeated. Between the line noise
    >^^^^^^^
    >>and the netcom hangs (and typing on/off while working) I
    >>dropped and mangled part of the sentence.
    >>
    >DING! DING! DING! I found another BIG LIE. Les AuCoin is
    >about as conservative as Democrats go, and far to the right
    >of Packwood.

Why, Maddi, are you out of enemas AGAIN!

Wall Street Journal, 10-Dec-92, and I quote "The woman who is leading an
effort in Oregon to recall Mr. Packwood ran against him in 1986 and supported
the liberal congressman who Mr. Packwood just defeated".

The WSJ has very high standards for accuracy. Maddi does not -- for example,
the WSJ would bever have reported that Michels was charged with anything.

Maddi, please post a verifiable source for your contention that the man
Packwood defeated is a conservative.

Something other than your overheated imagination.

And BTW, while I enjoy the fact that you are so obsessed with me and my posts,
you STILL can't have a date with me. Get a life, O.K.?



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: I am a great skeptic on 2nd-hand stories (was: Re: Is this wrong, or what?
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:58:17 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan5.092018.12391@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1iamliINNa0c@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
>    >I think his question is valid- knowing the name of the
>    >company may change the scope of perceptions about why they
>    >acted in the purported way that they did. Whether this
>    >company is PC or non-PC is irrelevant.
>
>Why? A man molests a minor. He kills himself. The company does not
>apologize. It lauds the molestor.
>
>Why is the name of the company important? Why?
>
>
>-- 

Let's put it in other terms- you posted and made the story available.
So it is up to you to make your posting convincing.  We do not have
to believe or buy into what this post is about, since we have just
a substitute company name here, substitute employee name here, etc.

Reasons why the name is important?  Well suppose it is a company 
that I purchase products from, I will stop buying from them, if
this whole story is correct in content.  Another reason might be
that the company makes childern toys, or books, or clothes.

So what is the big deal about giving all of the information at one
time.

This reminds me of tabloid TV programs that advertise to get your
attention, give you tidbits and then make you (if you choose)
have to tune in later to get the 'whole' story.  It is called
baiting- and it is not story or news worthy.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Why Do We Have Separate Restrooms? (WAS Re: Gays, the military...)
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:17:16 GMT

In article <ll3i33INNe8@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
    >Perhaps you aren't looking hard enough for differences (much
    >as a software developer might not look hard enough or
    >creatively enough for his own bugs). Perhaps you don't have
    >enough information (I assumed that you'd done a thorough
    >statistical study on the attirbutes of professional football
    >players and the general population, given the air of
    >authority with which you speak.)

Perhaps this, perhaps that. Maybe this, maybe that.

Mr. Chase, you WOULD recognize a fact if it bit you, right?

If you disagree, please feel free to present rational arguments against.

Your idle speculations are just that -- idle.

Now, who here on the net thinks that professional athletes are the only
group of men that are shy in the locker rooms when it comes to homosexuals
and women (reporters)? And that the rest of us men aren't that way at all?

Hmmm???


-- 
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: PLAY PHIL-O-MATIC!! (was Re: Name the company or shut up)
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:28:13 GMT

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >
jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes: >   >

>    >Pure B.S. As has been pointed out ad infinitum here and
>    >elsewhere, the most recent example, Packwood, was most
>    >definitely "PC" on most women's issues. Sure helped protect
>    >him, didn't it? Oh, and remember Gary Hart? That liberal, PC
>    >media bunch just let him right off the hook last election,
>    >didn't they?
>
>Oh, good heavens no. He wasn't PC enough! After all, the women leading
>the recall was the one he defeated in the prior election, and who also
>played some part in the campaign of the woman he defeated this time.
>
>How DARE a man run against a woman.

I'm beginning to think that Phil doesn't believe a word of
this tripe he's sending us.  *NO ONE* could get this many
facts wrong.  Phil's just tweaking us for fun, to see if
anyone notices that he's posting nothing but insults and
falsehoods.

But, I win again!  Today's deliberately placed mistake is:

    Bob Packwood's opponent in the 1992 Senatorial election was
    a man named Les AuCoin, who gave up his House seat to run.
    AuCoin was more conservative on social issues than Packwood,
    despite his being a Democrat.

Tune in to the next Ronzone post and see if you can FIND
THE BIG LIE!  Anyone can play!  It's fun, it's easy, and
then you can marvel as Phil insults you for it!

How to Score your Round at Phil-o-Matic:

Locate BIG LIE........................25 points
Locate CHANGE OF SUBJECT..............10 points per subject change
Locate ISSUE IGNORED..................15 points per ignored issue
Locate LOGICAL FALLACY:
   Argumentum ad Nauseum...............1 point
   Argumentum ad Hominem...............2 points
   Red Herring.........................2 points
   Loaded Question.....................5 points
   Argumentum ad Populum..............10 points
   Straw Man..........................10 points
   Slippery Slope.....................10 points
   Post hoc ergo propter hoc..........15 points
   Hasty Generalization...............15 points
   Transforming the Consequent........20 points
   Accentus...........................30 points 
Receive insult in follow-up............5 points per insult
Receive insult in different thread....15 points per insult
Simple Beration.......................10 points
Beration over four paragraphs.........25 points
More than one mention of PC...........10 points per mention
PC and FOA both mentioned.............20 points
More than 10 postings per day..........5 points
Extra followup to your article.........10 points per extra followup

Good luck!

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                       |  The Truth is still The Truth, forsooth 
madhaus@netcom.com                   |  Even if believing It you refuse
Centigram Communications Corp        |  Complete disproof's uncouth and moot
San Jose California  408/428-3553    |  A Fundie's brain is dead.
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Well, even Adolph had to start at thge bottom ...
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:02:22 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <1993Jan5.090300.11605@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <184767@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
>    >>Sig Heil Merline - fuck democracy, how dare a popularly
>    >>elected person vote against the way YOU want. Too bad we
>    >>don't have no labor kamps, eh?
>    >>
>    >OK, Phil...make up your mind: YOU decry being coerced through
>    >democratic voting processes, now you're declaring that you're
>    >for it.
>
>George, I really do believe that you live to see people respond to you on
>the net -- you post so stupidly that the only thing that can keep you
>around is mentiopn of your name. How sad.

Given the relative volume of postings between you and me, and the nature of
your inflammatory, non-substance postings, I've thought the same of you 
Phil.
>
>But in any case, we'll try to teach Mr. Lambert a few more concepts.
>
Thanks anyway, Phil, but your response doesn't explain why democracy works 
for some, but not for you.  It's that consistency problem you've had forever.

And you STILL haven't proposed a better system than democracy.

And you STILL can't spell.

George Lambert
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: pressure those nasty Bay Area cable companies!
Date: 6 Jan 93 00:32:57 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <ubrtf2c@zola.esd.sgi.com>, by cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio):
# walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
# |From article <1992Dec30.210516.27444@smsc.sony.com>, by markc@smsc.sony.com (Mark Corscadden):

# |> 2)  Are you sick *enough* that you're interested in taking political
# |>     action to force the offending companies to mend their ways?

# |No, I'm sick of people suggesting governmental intrusion
# |everytime a business does something that they do not like.

> If cable companies were normal businesses, I'd agree with you.
> But in every place I've gotten cable service, the cable provider
> was a monopoly.  I couldn't punish one provider for bad service
> by going to another one.  A political solution is possibly the
> only one in this case.

Darn it, you've got me thinking again.  There's only one Indian
restaurant in all of Rohnert Park.  I'm sick and tired of this
monopoly, and their high prices.  Political action anyone?

Silly as this may sound (I hope it sounds silly, anyway),
the same situation exists for TV programming.  So I will let
you in on a little secret:  Many television stations actually
broadcast their signals directly to the populace using VHF and
UHF radio frequency allocations!  These signals can actually be
received with common equipment which you may already have in
your possesion.
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Newsgroups: ba.politics