HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Mortgage nightmare
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:38:26 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <39119@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, by jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman):

> I just went through a refinance, and it was one of the worst experiences
> of my life.

Yep.

> That whole industry, from the lenders, the brokers, to the escrow and title
> companies, needs a kick in the ass from consumers and the government. I've
> never seen an industry before where the object is to shaft the customer
> as much as possible, and the customer is supposed to like it. They
> are so f**king careful with everyone's money but the customer's, and
> his is more or less a don't care.

Yep.

> Anybody have any idea where I can make some noise at the government level?

How about the steps of Sproul Hall at UC Bezerkeley?  1/2 :-)

But seriously folks, why have government punish an entire
category of businesses for the unwise practices of a few?
Why support a lousy mortgage broker?  We had one who was
a dog, so we dumped him and got a new one.  He is great.
This is called natural selection, and it has worked well
for eons.

If the price of a Big Mac, a Double Whopper, and a Super
Star went up to ten dollars, would you be calling for the
making "of some noise at the governmental level?"
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KC6RKZ@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: linda@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com (Linda Levy)
Subject: clinton-gore mail server
Organization: Lockheed Santa Cruz, CA.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 17:32:46 GMT

I was sent information on a clinton-gore mail server,
   clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org
with adjuncts that to receive latest speeches, include Subject line "info 
speeches",  to receive all available position papers, include Subject line 
"info all", etc.  But I keep getting my mail back as host unknown.  Any 
clues out there?  It would be nice if it was available....  thanks!
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 9 Oct 92 04:02:16 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <39197@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
wrote:

> If he was truly neutral on the school prayer issue - no promotion
> or restraint of silent prayer by anyone in school - then this
> would be a non-existant topic, because this is currently the way 
> things are now. Nobody is stopping anyone,anywhere from silently praying
> during school.

It's not that big of an issue.  In fact, I think YOU brought it up.  It was
one small point out of many.
 
> The fact that "school prayer" is an issue at all says that proponents 
> (including Herr Bruce) really want more than what you are claiming. QED.

The fact that you would try to equate a Jewish man with a Nazi is the
sickest remark I could imagine.  You really should be ashamed of yourself.
--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:08:30 GMT
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <Bvrq60.JxM@cup.hp.com>
 by runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan):

: Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
:> I state that no one has a claim on my existence. Period. I may trade
:> my efforts, intellect, property, etc. for other such things from other
:> people, but that no one has any "claim" to my property.
:
: This does lead me to wonder about a few things.  When you `trade [your]
: efforts, intellect, property, etc" for things, you are doing so through
: some sort of agreement.

At this point you can stop.  You just said the operative word, "agreement."

Have you agreed to support schools?

Have you agreed to feed the kids in Somalia (wherever the hell THAT is)?

Now if you have, by all means, do so.  I won't lift a finger to stop
you.  But if you haven't, then I think it's time you re-assessed your
reasons for doing so.

:> How large is this community? City? County? State? Nation? World?
:
: Since Michael did not see Somalia entering into the discussion, I think
: we can safely eliminate World as part of the community under discussion.

May I please eliminate the City from the community under discussion?  I
support my family, by agreement, and I think that's quite enough, thank
you very much.

:> I state that the limit is 0 -- that no one has a claim on your
:> existence.
:
: This limit is a good theory, but does it work in practice?

Yes.  Altho, I wonder if you actually understand where Phil is coming
from.  Most of your article indicates, to me at least, that you don't.

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
Madam, there's no such thing as a tough child -- if you parboil them
first for seven hours, they always come out tender.  -- W. C. Fields
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Opinons on prop 167?
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:22:42 GMT
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <22929@galaxy.ucr.edu>
 by judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson):

: Are there any [opinions on prop 167]?

Here?  Na-aa-aa-aa-h!  If NAMBLA ain't in the subject line, we don't
discuss it!  Ever!  B-{)

: I am inclined to vote no.

Me too.

: What would make me vote yes?

I suppose we _could_ perform a frontal lobotomy ...




I've got my voter information pamphlet here, and prop 167 is NINE PAGES
of double-column 9-point type, 172 lines per page, roughly 10 words per
line, translating to just under 16 THOUSAND WORDS.

A lawyer's wet dream.  That scares me all by itself.

To be fair, roughly 5% of that is strike-out text, and another half
appears to be existing law.  >>whew!<< only 8k words.  But hell, the
objective analysis is four pages!

It pretends to tax corporations.  You know what happens when corpora-
tions receive a tax.  They just pass it on to their customers.

Here's a good quote, SEC 2, (e): "Tax loopholes are the largest source 
of wasteful government spending."
    Somebody's got to explain that to me!

(f) "The best way to improve our business climate is to expand economic
opportunity for all Californians by ending special interest tax breaks,"
    Increasing taxes at any level does nothing to help the economy.
    Indeed, "soaking the rich" is a great way to tell rich folks you
    hate 'em, and that they should leave and take their jobs with 'em.

(g) "The people must ... do away with special interest tax loopholes,
reduce their own taxes, ... because special interest tax loopholes are
protected by a 2/3rd vote requirement ..."
    In other words, a 2/3rd vote is required to increase taxes.  I call
    it increasing taxes, but they call it "closing a loophole."  This is
    probably another case of "class envy" meaning, they be rich, we be
    poor, so let's vote ourselves a nice raise at their expense.

What we really need is a constitutional amendment that enforces the 
separation between Economy and State.

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: School Vouchers: Constitutionality?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:08:25 GMT

In article <23030@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:
>A similar question was raised in the case Everson v. Board of Education.

What makes education special?

We give people food stamps.  They can spend them most anywhere.

>Furthermore, the idea of "school vouchers" is utterly ridiculous.  If it
>is proposed because it will give the chance for parents to send their
>children to good schools, then doesn't this send a message that our
>public school system is not adequate?

Since our public school system is not adequate, why is sending that
message bad?

>Instead of worrying about giving
>parents school vouchers, why doesn't the government put that money into
>the public school system.

Because putting that money into the public school system has failed
miserably.

The voucher systems proposed give public school systems MORE money per
pupil than they have now.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:02:24 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <39115@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
wrote:

> >>The US Constitution says that (1) you can't force me pray and (2) you can't
> >>stop me from praying.  That's all Bruce is saying.  Boxer, on the other
> >>hand, is saying that you CAN stop someone from praying.  That's against the
> >>first amendment, unless you have another explanation?
> >>
> >
> >Could you please elaborate on the "you CAN stop someone from praying"?
> >(i.e. give examples) Prayer seems like a pretty personal issue to me, 
> >so why does Bruce need to get involved in someone's private thoughts? 
> >Can't students take a moment of silence before eating lunch or during 
> >quiet "work" periods? 
> 
> Rick already knows this to be fact. He and Bruce aren't going to be happy
> until the teacher is leading the class in an "authorized" prayer. The
> only acceptable prayer is a noisy prayer, where everyone else in the
> room knows you are talking to god, right Rick?
> 
> This most certainly ISN'T all that Bruce is saying.

At first I wanted to say "Piss off" but thought better of it.

You don't know me.  You don't know *what* I think, as evidenced by your
remark above.  I would be completely against a teacher leading a prayer,
just as I would be a teacher telling a student to stop praying.  

Like I said: neither prohibit nor encourage prayer.  That's all, by the
way, Bruce has been saying too.  Unless you can prove otherwise, which I
seriously doubt.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8621 ba.politics:6038
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:07:38 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <12699@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Mr. Kane has posted some numbers that, even leaving out monogamous
>heterosexuals, and making obviously absurd assumptions about non-
>monogamous heterosexuals remaining so, and at the same sexual
>promiscuity level throughout their lifetimes, still show homosexual
>men as at least twice as promiscuous as the non-monogamous homosexuals.

The assumptions aren't that absurd given recent divorce stats.

I realize this will be difficult to digest, especially since some of
my interlocutors go under the assumption that sexual fidelity is the
end-all of a good marriage.

While I remain monogamous at this point, I don't delude myself by believing
that the day will never come when my partner and I might come to an agreement
that we may entertain outside partners from time to time.

As long as we mutually agree about it, and we are honest, who cares.
(And we realize that doing so entails a large amount of responsibility
to practice safer sex, preferably safe sex, i.e. masturbation.)
We know what makes our relationship work. We feel that love should be
and is UNCONDITIONAL. Honesty, integrity, and a positive image of
oneself (including ones sexual self), the building blocks of a 
commitment based solely on ideas, on love, is infinitely more appealing
to us than commitment grounded solely on behavior.

Saying "If you do this, or if you don't do this, you don't love me"
strikes us as a very artificial, superficial, self-comsumed declaration
of what love ought to be.

I prefer to base my ideal relationship on my belief in God. God's love
for us is unconditional, and we only realize this by accepting OUR
imperfection. Why do we then expect perfection in our mortal partners?

Sexual infidelity may indeed be a sign of a troubled marriage, when such
behaviour is not mutually agreed upon, or hidden completely (makes ya
wonder---how many straight couples do you think hide their infidelities
completely?). But if there is good communication and such behaviour is
mutually OK'd, then is it not a sign that the love each partner has for
the other transcends expectations of sexual perfection?

If not, why do we ascribe unconditional Godly love as good? Is it not
rather hypocritical not to live this way ourselves?

If you decide to be sexually monogamous for the rest of your life, for
whatever reason, fine. This might describe me, who knows!

But it you and your partner mutually agree that some other arrangement
is feasible, so be it, too!

Live life the way you want to---be responsive to your partner, put him/her
first, but also come to respect that you are not the sole answer to your
partners needs and wants. One is selfish believing that.

Brian
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:11:08 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <12673@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>It was December.  My daughter was in first grade.  They were singing
>various Christmas songs (secular variety).  My daughter, foolishly,
>suggested singing "Silent Night."  The teacher's response was, "We
>can't do that.  That would be illegal."  Does that make you a little
>uncomfortable?  Sort of like, "Can we discuss evolution?"  "No, that
>would be illegal."

Not one little bit Cramer. Songs of the sort of "Silent Night" are blatently
religious, and belong in other venues.

Evolution, on the other hand, is science, whatever the religious morons
who try to equate it to creationism might want to believe, and it does
belong in the schools.

>I don't know where you find such people.  I know that my concern is
>that the First Amendment is being very selectively read and 
>enforced in certain circles.  It took Congressional action, and
>a decision by the Supreme Court, to make it legal for high school
>students to get together at lunchtime and read the Bible in a vacant
>classroom -- just like any other extracurricular group.  There is
>a vigorous effort on the part of liberals to not just stop establishment
>of religion, but to suppress freedom of worship.

I think it needed to be established exactly where the line should be
drawn. Would you equally support the use of school facilities
by young Satanists, Animists, Hare Krishnas, etc.? If any religious
group is admitted, they all should be. I would insist that their use
of school property is completely unabtrusive, however.





-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:36:08 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <39492@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:
> In article <12723@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #Yes, indeed, I'm not a liberal.  I believe in equal protection of
# #the law.  The problem is that our schools are extremely tolerant
# #of New Age religions being expressed and even encouraged, but 
# #anything that smacks of Christianity is anethema, and prohibited
# #(until the courts and Congress intervened).
# 
# Well, I'm not a bible-thumping conservative, but I'd bet that most would
# scream bloody murder (including Pat Robertson et al.) if the "liberals"
# allowed Satanists etc onto the school grounds. You know this as well
# as I do.

This may surprise you, but there is already quite a bit of upset about
the promotion (not mere allowing use of facilities) of various New
Age religious practices.  Not that it matters, because the left
runs things in California schools.

# ## group is admitted, they all should be. I would insist that their use
# ## of school property is completely unabtrusive, however.
# 
# #Why?
# 
# So that there is no question of whether or not they are interfering with
# the beliefs or the lack thereof of others trying to use the same facilities.
# 
# School is for learning, church is for bible-thumping. I will do whatever I can
# to make sure they stay seperated.
# 
# Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering

"School is for learning to read, write, and do arithmetic.  College
is for the promotion of atheism, moral relativism, and sexual
promiscuity.  I will do whatever I can to make sure they stay
separated."  How does that grab you?

You still haven't answered the question about the First Amendment,
because your stated goal above is contrary to the free exercise
clause.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Subject: Re: School Vouchers: Constitutionality?
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:47:27 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Andy Freeman (andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>> judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:
>>A similar question was raised in the case Everson v. Board of Education.
>What makes education special?
>We give people food stamps.  They can spend them most anywhere.

If I understand the point Michael Judson was making, the answer to
`How are school vouchers different from food stamps' is that there
aren't too many religious based stores to spend those stamps in, hence
you can't support a religion by issuing food stamps, whereas the
courts indicated that using a method of allowing people to support
religious schools (and thereby support the religion) was against 
the separation of church and state.

Of course, if there are religious based stores, or if one can give
food stamps to a religious institution for its use, then your point
is valid.

Mark Runyan
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8635 ba.politics:6050
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Perceptions about everyday life- (was Mother Flame Wars)
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:45:49 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1ba8kqINNrrc@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
    >In article <1992Oct11.180621.22980@netcom.com>
    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>"All studies are biased ..."?
    >>
    >How could it be any other way- show me, demostrate to me,
    >that there are studies in existence that have no 'human
    >psychological' bias element. If you believe this not to be
    >true... well I don't know what to tell you.

Double blind experiments to start with.




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: betsy@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Betsy Speicher)
Subject: Ronzone NOT a Randian
Organization: Quake Public Access, Sylmar CA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:11:35 GMT

Phil Ronzone is NOT a Randian and the style and content of his postings
are fundamentally opposed the Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, in
dozens of respects.
 
I am in a position to to know.  While I am not an "official" spokesman
for Objectivism I have been an Objectivist for over thirty years, I was
privileged to have had several conversations with Ayn Rand in the 1960's
and 1970's, I have written for several Objectivist publications, and I
am currently President of the 300-member Southern California Objectivist
Assn.
 
Objectivists as a matter of practicing the virtue of rationality make
carefully reasoned arguments for their points.  We despise logical
fallacies like _ad_hominem_ argument.  We know that knowledge is
objective, not intrinsic, so we seek to be aware of and sensitive to the
of the context of our audience.  We hold that people are "ends in
themselves" and should be treated with courtesy ("Rationality appled to
human interactions," according to Rand) IF we choose to deal with them
voluntarily.
 
I find many of Ronzone's opinions at odds with reality and Rand.  For
instance, Objectivists hold that children DO have a claim on their
parents on the grounds that a man is responsible for the consequences of
his actions.  (As I recall from Biology 101, the existence of children
is causally related to the actions of the parents.)  Objectivists,
unlike Ronzone, hold that moral standards can be rationally justified by
reference to reality.
 
Those of you who want to know who Ayn Rand is can read her books.  Those
of you who want to know what Ronzone is can read his postings.  Any
connection is purely coincidental.
 
I sure wish he would pick on somebody else's philosophy.
 
                                 Betsy Speicher
 
0004920191@mcimail.com
Betsy_Speicher@mcimail.com