HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:24:09 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: prime theories

>If the discussion was STRICTLY about crime control properties
>of gun control, then you are correct.  However, my interest was
>to see whether the two opposing sides on this issue could converge.
>For that purpose, the opinion of the other side on the 2nd becomes
>very relevant.

Converge on what and why?  If there aren't any crime control benefits,
what justifies restrictions, what are we paying the costs for?  Does
"if you don't jail people, I'll be really mad" really count for much?

Consensus is not always possible.  How much is it worth anyway?

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:09:46 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: wild weather on the main line
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>a friend's hubby is a manager at peco (for the uninitiated, PECO is the phila.
>electric company). he said the the main liners (the snooty old money rich
>people and the snooty newer money wannabe's) are out of their minds. they kept
>calling to complain that their lights were off, and would they please get them
>back on immediately since they were in the midsts of a "very important dinner
>party".  peco also had crews out delivering dry ice to people so their food
>wouldn't spoil.

        Utilities generall have easements along their power lines.  So it
should be up to the utility about what trees to trim.

>
>people around here don't like to have their trees trimmed. they won't allow
>peco to trim branches back from power lines so when wind and stuff happens
 guess
>who's first to go and longest to get back on??? snooty main liners. its named
>that due to the train tracks which were called when first built "the main line"
>because they connected us w/ phila. then from there to points elsewhere.
>the people who settled around here (from good ol willy penn on) were very well-
>off. full of history and large estates and horses and old trees that noone
>will allow to be trimmed.

        So when the power goes out, PECO could always say: "The power will be
on as soon as we build a scaffolding to get around those trees." :)

>actually, i like the old trees (but i won't park under them during a storm).

        Me too, but not around power lines.  Of course out here in the 'burbs
they manage to string the power lines through the back yards, so cutting trees
isn't a status problem.

>anyway, friday we finally closed the university at 2pm. we worked from 8am til
>then in the dark w/no heat. people were trying to conduct business by
>flashlight. we lit candles in the bathrooms. we shook our heads from side to
>side a lot. we opened again sat. from 9-2 so people could sit in the dark.
>
>well, hope we get back to the 20th century soon.
>
>-linda

        Just change the sign to "Federally Funded..." and people will
understand :).

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 13:45:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.DREW.EDU
Subject:      Re: On limiting posts ...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt417722@drew.edu>, jimmy donal wales <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.
   EDU> writes:
>>Limits is obviously a bad idea since it is a kind of censorship which
>>I don't like in nearly any fashion.
>
> Assuming that my interpretation of your convoluted grammar is adequate,
> then I must demur.
>

"Limits are obviously a bad idea, since they are a kind of censorship,
which I don't like in nearly any fashion."  Better?  I proclaim myself
the king of bad editing, ok.  I admit it, and lately have been getting
several reminders of it.  It is a sickness, an addiction.  Please bear with
me.

> Limiting the number of posts per day does not amount to 'censorship'
> under any reasonable interpretation of that word.  Quite frankly, I
> wish we could kick about a half-dozen people off of here, so that some
> sensible discussion of politics could take place.

censorship is the suppression of speech for various reasons.  limiting
the number of posts per day does this, and as Val noted, the method
is liable to be flawed.  Tell me how you plan to select who to kick
off or limit without it being via censorshiply (not a word) means.
And who are "we"?  Is this list lead by some group that can dispose of
the right of people to post (unless their posts go over the line and
do so after warnings -- some might fit this criteria, which is still
vague)?

>
>>  Any misconceptions
>>of my intentions should be disposed of what your disposal razors etc.
>
> Uh, sure.  The same goes for me.
>
> --Jimbo
>
   -Joe, who doesn't even use disposal razors most of the time
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:40:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.DREW.EDU
Subject:      Re: Words and Footnotes
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt424502@drew.edu>, Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes:

[ongoing discussion on racism that shows how important words and
definitions are in setting policy deleted.  Thus, Jamie's talk of
words again is shown to be important.  Politics is such a diverse
area, isn't it?]

> Jamie
>
> Footnote to Joe:
>
>>Jim gave 2^b as the biggest number using some mathematical terms.  Did
>>they mean that what number is before the "b" doesn't matter?  i.e. is
>>9^b not larger than 2^b?
>
> 2^b, or not 2^b, that is the question, I guess.

someone used this joke already

> Jim? Oh yeah, him.
> If b is infinite, then 9^b is not larger than 2^b. Well, it depends
> on which kind of "larger" you use, and which kinds of numbers you're
> talking about, but Jimbo's is the most common interpretation.

than why the "2"?  wouldn't "b" be enough since infinity (is this
really a number? some say it isn't) is the largest number anyhow.

>
> See, Joe, this is all in a footnote, and the real posting has political
> content, so I'm off the hook. Right?
>
right.  as long as it doesn't include an ad hominem or personal attack
:-)

      -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:49:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.DREW.EDU
Subject:      Re: normal (please explain)
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt424737@drew.edu>, aldgate@VAX.OX.AC.UK writes:
> strange how some of you decide that normal is when one doesb't have to concern
> oneself with ones taken for granted rights whereas gay people etc., have to be
> positively ascribed with rights, pointing out that in the very moment in which
> you want to say that they are normal because they have rights in common with
> all others, they are not normal because they are the ones, ie., minorities who
> have to be positively picked out as having rights. Patronising or what?
>
Editor Jim better respond to this post :-)  Let me try to understand
what you are saying to here.  "Normal" people don't have to worry
about their rights, while gay people (apparently abnormal) have to be
given rights.  These given rights prove gays are normal (or so people
say), but really aren't because they were chosen to be given rights.
I believe you lost me and many others on this list.

             -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:07:15 EST
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: new topic -- Queens controversy

May I respectfully suggest to all Politics-L members with opposable
thumbs that they cease wasting their time by talking "with" Robert?
There reaches an extreme point on the perspective of right and left
where the speaker is clearly not in rational control of what they're
saying and thinking. There is in fact a clear symptom: the only purpose
of their statements is to hector and annoy. Robert clearly does not know
the first thing about homosexuality, homosexuals, or the concept of right;
he posts his noxious drivel on these subjects just to get a rise out of
people who take decency seriously. In no sense is what he says part of any
serious process of conversation. Ladies and gentlemen who take political
discussion in earnest, argue with this pathetic misanthrope at your own
risk.
MWM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:17:49 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject: Re: andy f. quietly declares class warfare on the
              "rivet-heads"

>>Same as above. I believe that I have fairly consistently held that the
>>wealthy (and business) should pay a fair share of the tax burden based
>>upon the proportionately larger degree to which they profit from
>>government services (education of workforce, infrastructure, etc.)
>>and the privilege of participation in our market.

>Do the rich really place a greater burden on govt services?  They may
>benefit more from their use, but that doesn't imply that they impose
>greater costs.

Yes, indeed they do, or more accurately yes the economic activities
that they own/operate/profit from do. Consider the cost of "sending
the marines" to deal with some little hitch that comes up. Consider the
burden they place upon the court system, consider the cost of cleaning up
the environmental messes that they leave, and don't even think about
getting me started on the topic of gov't support of the arts... B)

>Consider "rich" communities.  They have far lower policing costs than
>poor ones.

Some proof of this please? Does your source take into consideration
the relatively smaller population density of these areas? The number
of businesses in the areas? Perhaps it might be more accurate to compare
the costs of policing these areas with rural communities (where poverty
certainly exists in abundance) and population densities are similar and
there may be some reasonable comparison of natural boundaries, etc.

>A rich person's car doesn't require any more
>infrastructure than a poor person's, and the rich person pays more
>taxes on their cars.

First many poor people cannot afford cars, second, I'd wager that most
poor people do not have a fleet of trucks delivering their products
to market.

>Only a monopoly can maintain a "benefits received" pricing structure;
>competition drives prices toward cost-to-provide.  We've seen that
>O'Andy dislikes private monopolies, so why does he like public ones?

This argument came up as a result of Brett''s statement that the
progressive tax structure was unfair to the rich, it has little
to do with monopolies, etc.; what the point is, which andy f.
concedes is that the rich benefit more than the poor (and especially
more than the middle class for that matter) from public expenditures,
hence it is fair to tax the income that they derive from that benefit
more heavily.

-andy

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: rightist
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:20:51 GMT


Caius writes:

>Please tell me more on the economist in Auburn. From my point of view the
>world seems to be dominated by the Keynesians, neo-keynesians,
>pro-keynesians and so on.

From my point of view the world seems to be dominated by mathematical
economists.  

For the most part (and I readily admit that the people
doing work in the area would disagree with me) the entire macroeconomic
approach is dead -- killed by rational expectations models which showed
that many of the consequences predicted by Keynesian (and non-Keynesian)
economic models depend critically upon a certain kind of implausible
sustained ignorance on the part of the people.

>And only a handful of people who try to teach the facts about economy.

!

>I try to fight all those who put the labels to wrong things. I believe
>market will just work better, as it has worked for the centuries.

I always try not to "put the labels to wrong things."  So you probably
won't have to fight me much.  You may have to fight yourself, though,
given your proclivity to call things what they are not.

But I find your approach suggestive of assuming that things HAVE
some correct name, determined instrinically to the thing.  This is
a silly approach.  I think people have widely understood for a long
time now that particular words are conventional (not arbitrary! 
conventional!). 

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:56:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Add Hominem

All this talk about "add hominem".  Add hominem, add hominem, add hominem.

Well, _I_ say, leave the hominem OUT!  Don't care _what_ the recipe says;
don't add the hominem.  I like my salt pork and beans _without_ the hominem!


'Course, I still like me a plate o' creamed hominem on toast...in that instance,
be my guest!   Add the hominem!  Add all the gd hominem you like!


What worries me is all that added hominem they now have in packaged foods.  Why
do they need to add so much hominem?  I get a headache from all that added
hominem.

Could we put together an ad hoc committee to study all this added hominem?
I'll admit it's not advocated by every adorable adjutant who advises adherence
to additional adolescent administrative adequacy; and I'd admonish adroit
adulterers whose adjectival adventurousness advances adept adjournment of all
such adjudications.  I am adamant, nay adhortatory, that addition of hominem,
admirable for adjusting adipose, advances adrenal adversity ad infinitum.
I advise advertisers and all adjunct Admirals to take advantage of such ado
over added hominem by adopting admissible additives, ad nauseam, that
end such addictions ad valorem.

Addat's ada enda dat!

Adolf...er,

Adonis...er,

-T.
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Other People's Money (was Inaugural costs...)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 13:30 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <POLITICS%92121710552852@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,       
  K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> writes...
>From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
> 
>>> So I am in a restaurant eating.  After I am done (receiving the
>>> service) the owner asks for payment.  Do I have a choice there?
> 
>> Sure, you got to choose whether or not you made the deal.
> 
>I don't follow that.  Can I say we never had a deal so I am not
>gonna pay?  After all, there is no signed or verbal contract.

Sorry.  A contract is formed based on the generally accepted methods of offer
and acceptance.  In a restaurant, the menu is the offer, and an order is an
acceptance.  Consideration is the restaurant's service, and your promise to
pay.  This also means that if you go to the barber and sit in the chair, you
have a contract.  (Many thanks to Profs. Dominic Vetri and R. James Mooney for
this explanation.)

		  				Dan, ad nauseum	
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: An Historian
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:47:51 GMT


Rechecking, I see that I made a mistake when I posted this an stuff.

>>AN: (etymology efficiently elided) (other obtuseness omitted) A - in
>>standard speech and writing used:
>>
>>       (1) invariably before words beginning with a vowel letter and sound
>>       {an oak}
>>
>>       (2) invariably before h-initial words in which the h is silent {an
>>       honor}
>>
>>       (3) frequently before h-initial words which have in an initial
>>       unstressed syllable an /h/ sound often lost after the [an]
>>
>>       (4) sometimes esp. in England before words like union and European
>>       whose initial letter is a vowel and whose initial sounds are /yu:/ or
>>       /yu./
>>
>>Does that settle it?
>>
>>--Jimbo
>
>
>Hmm..."h-initial words which have in an initial unstressed syllable an /h/
>sound often lost after the [an]"....hmmmmm.....*what* word does that make me
>think of?  Couldn't be HISTORIAN, could it?  Let's take a look:
>
>HISTORIAN
>H-initial word:                         CHECK
>Initial unstressed syllable:            CHECK
>/h/ sound lost after the [an]:          CHECK

Actually, in section (3), my dictionary even goes so far as to
give {an historian} as an example.

--jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:19:44 EST
From:         jc-s <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Tim's 'duties'

>
>        Even more rare are the time(s) he scores a hit...
>                                               ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>-T.

wait a minnit here, shouldn't that be an hit?

>PS Ramon: have you ever played Ping Pong against an opponent who can barely
>return your serves?  Kind of bums you out, right?

Oh quit trying to suck up to ramon.  Sheesh. what a toad.
>

jenna
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:11:27 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Some replies...

>Why doesn't Pizz just drop all the half-hearted BS arguments and just SAY
>"I want private business to be able to discriminate based upon (the above)
> when hiring." ???

  Because, I suppose, arguments can either be sound or unsound,
and thus we can determine, without namecalling, the soundness of
the conclusion.  Because Pizz presumably believes that this right
of private business is not a premise, but a conclusion which follows
logically from certain plainly acceptable premises.  That, -T., is
what argument is about.

>I don't think _anyone_ has bought your arguments, Doc...just admit it and we
>can move on.....

  I think, perhaps, if you don't buy the arguments, it might be
worth demonstrating where they are flawed.  We complain when
Robert won't argue, and now -T. complains that Dr. Pizz is willing
to make the effort and take the time to give his argument and
premises in detail.  (Perhaps because -T. is unwilling or unable
to refute them in detail?  Pure speculation, of course.)

                           -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:41:42 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: I'm Baaack!! (and starting to regret it)
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              17, 92 12:43 pm

Ramon pisze:
>>         Can we get back at the real questions of meaning about Life, the
>> Universe and Everything?

42?

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:16:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      racism

>      Racism, you seem to believe, has to involve people in power.  I
> contest this allusion.  Does the word not imply making judgments and
> evaluations of people based on their race?  If so, then Affirmative
> Action Quota programs are racist, minority scholarship rograms are
> racist, and the like.  Further, all of these situations involve power
> being used to enforce racist policy....  Hmmmm
>
>
> Pizz

Once again, you're confusing racism with bigotry.  Racism >does<
involve people in power, and in the United States of America, the
power is overwhelmingly (though not totally) held by whites.  The word
"racism" in itself is a tricky, slimy word that only confuses the issue.
Bigotry is wrong!  It involves everyone.  Racism is wrong!  It also
involves everyone, but it is a >system< where bigotry is a major
contributing factor.

As for your points about Affirmative Action and other programs, I
tend not to believe in quotas, and I'm glad our incoming president
doesn't seem to be too keen on them either.  But they are not
racist programs, in my view.  They are not about one group of people
>in power< oppressing a whole other group of people.

If Spike Lee is not a racist, than Rush Limbaugh can't be, either.

I used to recoil in horror whenever I thought about a black stranger
calling >me<, a white person, a "racist."  Now I don't fear it, because
while I understand that >I< personally have never actively worked to
foster bigotry and thus, in turn, foster racism; while I >personally<
have never >intentionally< used my position of privilege to step on
other people -- I am not afraid to consider my place (which I never
chose willingly) in this country's institutionalized racism.  In fact
it was not until relatively recently that I was able to throw off
some of my fear and unwillingness to look the truth in the face.

I think bigotry, whether espoused by blacks or whites, is wrong, and
should always be criticized and discouraged.

Am I going to whip myself bloody over the fact that I'm white and
that whites have the power in this country even still?   No, I'm
not going to whip myself bloody.

Am I going to let other people, black or white, stomp on me because
I'm white and whites have the upper hand in this country's institutionalized
racism?  No.

Am I going to say that whites and blacks don't have equal responsibility
to kill racism?    No.

Am I going to lie to myself and say that I'm not a member of a racial
majority that has and continues to oppress a racial minority?   No!

Am I going to ignore my personal responsibility to help kill racism?
No.

The truth is nothing to be afraid of.  I remember what it's like to
be afraid of it.


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 09:57:19 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: andy f. quietly declares class warfare on the
              "rivet-heads"

>Same as above. I believe that I have fairly consistently held that the
>wealthy (and business) should pay a fair share of the tax burden based
>upon the proportionately larger degree to which they profit from
>government services (education of workforce, infrastructure, etc.)
>and the privilege of participation in our market.

Do the rich really place a greater burden on govt services?  They may
benefit more from their use, but that doesn't imply that they impose
greater costs.

Consider "rich" communities.  They have far lower policing costs than
poor ones.  A rich person's car doesn't require any more
infrastructure than a poor person's, and the rich person pays more
taxes on their cars.

Only a monopoly can maintain a "benefits received" pricing structure;
competition drives prices toward cost-to-provide.  We've seen that
O'Andy dislikes private monopolies, so why does he like public ones?

-andy
--