HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amck@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree)
Subject: Re: Privatization
Organization: MCC, Austin, Texas
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:37:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.023500.3599@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.224811.26050@mcc.com> amck@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes:
>This situation will not last forever, as technological changes will
>make, say, copper wire, obsolete.  AT&T breaks up because something
>like MCI can compete with it.  The Baby Bells will face stiff
>competition as cellular phones proliferate and cable companies start
>carrying voice signals.  These technological changes, however, didn't
>happen for, what, 70 or 80 years after phones were first installed.
>That's a lifetime, and you're letting a natural monopoly have free
>rein for quite the long-term.

I don't know the exact details, but one of the presidents of Bell back
in the 20s (?) got a _large_ amount of government help to sell(?)
distribute(?) phones,, by arging the benefits of "universal phone
service".  In other words, the monopoly Bell achieved was through
explicit subsidization, aka government assistance, not market
acceptance of their product at the price they could afford to offer on
their own.  Had Bell not been subsidized, there would have been
significantly different phone service in this country.

>Oh, OPEC is not a company.  OPEC is a cartel, which are inherently
>unstable.  The members have no incentives to obey agreements, as the
>overarching organization has no coercive power.  We're talking about
>monopolies in this discussion, not loose collections of
>self-interested actors.

Well, wouldn't a monopoly arising from a hypothetical field of many
competitors go through an intermediate phase of a few more successful
competitors?  That's how anti-trust laws continue to be
justified--when it became clear that "monopoly" was not happening, in
the sense of _one_ company taking over an industry, the emphasis was
switched to _oligopoly_, in which _a few_ companies were seen as
controlling an industry.  OPEC has just as much incentive to obey
price-fixing agreements as, say, the 7 largest oil companies or steel
companies would have to hold to theirs -- and had just as much success
(i.e., none) as the companies would.  The anti-trust laws are just as
unnecessary as laws prohibiting OPEC would be.

>>More info in D. T. Armentano's _Antitrust:  The Case for Repeal_,
>>which I strongly recommend to your attention.  I trust the readers of
>>this newsgroup will not be unduly skeptical of the concept of reduced
>>government interference in the economy; this book will give you
>>valuable ammunition against the opposite position.

>
>I'll check it out when I have the chance.  Who's the publisher?

Cato Institute, 224 Second St. S.E., Washington, D.C.  20003,
800-767-1241.

(Standard disclaimer, I have no connection with the Cato Institute
other than as a satified buyer of their books from time to time.)

-- 
Alan McKendree          Opinions posted by me are mine, only.
amck@rowdy.mcc.com         Who/Little Feat/racquetball/Rand
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70238 ca.politics:10710
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: safe sex question
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:22:19 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


More reminders from soc.motss of why homosexuals are dying of AIDS 
at very high rates -- and that the behavior hasn't changed:

In article <C17qDs.3tv@cs.vu.nl>, fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!) writes:
> ptb@meaddata.com (Patrick Bell) writes:
# #If you knew you were HIV- and you knew your sex partner (lover, fuck buddy,
# #tearoom trick, whatever) was HIV+ and he wanted you to suck his cock w/o
# #a condom, would you?
# 
# You are putting this as a hypothetical question. It is not to me.
# 
# Although the person in question didn't tell me he was HIV+, his
# life-history indicated to me that it would be a miracle right up there
# with the water-walking thing if he was seronegative.
# 
# Yes, I did suck him. Based on the info I get here in Amsterdam -
# very much like the info in Denamark and the German-speaking contingent,
# I don't think I was that much of a fool.
# 
# #Now add a twist, if his cock was dripping pre-cum, would you?
# 
# What happens over here is that people spit. You know, suck, suck, spit,
# lick, suck, suck, spit, etc.
# 
# #And I mean put it in your mouth!  None of this lick-around-the-balls
# stuff.
# 
# Honey, I may not be a pro, but I know what they like. Give em the full
# show.
# 
# 							FJ!!


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: wells@stein.u.washington.edu (Vernon Wells)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Mr Rousseau and Economics
Date: 27 Jan 1993 17:04:01 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu
Summary: A response to Mr Rousseau

I, too, applaud your efforts, Mr Rousseau.  I would, however, like to make
an addend.  I think that it is important to explore beyond the "classics."
It is indeed true that Adam Smith and his ilk have much to contribute to
the study of economics (I am currently reading a section from "Wealth of
Nations" about public education), but it is important to note that the
science of economics has evolved since their times.  That does not make
their arguments necessarily false or moot, but it instead helps to flesh
them out, and attempts to explain failings of some of those classical
economists (and yes, there are failings.)  I would suggest going to the
local library and checking out a modern micro- and macroeconomics text. 
Many of them are fairly to very readable.  I think that they would be a
very important addition to your pool of study, and if nothing else, they
will supplement your studies with current information.  

I, like Mr Rousseau, think that it is important that Americans empower
themselves, not at the prompting of a Presidential Candidate, or even an
alternative News magazine, but instead, of their own accord.  There are
many more things to read about and understand besides Economics  --
International studies, history, science, arts and culture.  Of course, we
can't spend all of our time reading, but I think it very important that we
do more of it; not as a regiment of self-discipline, but as the freedom to
emancipate ourselves from ignorance and misunderstanding.  A note to
anyone who does this, though: approach always with an open-mind.  We tend
to forget that most of our ideas are formed from biases that are given to
us, not biases that we ourselves form.  It is hard to get rid of those. 
Always weigh the evidence, and DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.  Discard your
presuppositions as you tackle new ideas, and always analize them from all
angles, not just you particle degree on the political or social spectrum.

Of course, people have the right to choose their own path.  But I would
hope, if not for the prosperity of America and the world, then at least
for your own prosperity, that you choose the pursuit of enlightenment over
ignorance.  I would not say that I am a perfect model of this axiom, or
that anyone could be.  And sometimes, all of that information gathering needs
to translate into a decision, but I urge all, decide for yourself.  Thank
you for your time and attention.

--Vernon Wells (wells@u.washington.edu)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: "It's the economy, stupid!"
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1993Jan20.133520.2550@linus.mitre.org>
	<C16q75.JpI@newsserver.technet.sg>
	<1993Jan21.144844.18829@linus.mitre.org>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:02:36 GMT

<In article <1993Jan21.144844.18829@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

<That's ok.  I wouldn't want you to worry about the nuclear-tipped ICBM's located
<in the Ukrain, 

	And Kazakhistan and the Russian Republic. 
	Ukraine has not yet signed STARTI, by the way.

	But don't worry, be happy: Bill will no doubt charm
	them into signing.
	
<or the minor nit that most of the oxygen in the air that you are
<breathing comes from South America, 

	Uh, I don't think so. The Amazon rain forest is big,
	but the oceans are bigger; plankton and other such
	plants in the oceans far outmass any rain forest.

	But don't worry, be happy: Bill will find us another
	source of oxygen.

<or that the food you ate this morning came from all over the planet.

	Doubtful. Most of it came from North America....of course,
	if NAFTA goes down the tubes, that Mexican produce may	
	dry up.

	But don't worry, be happy: Bill will fix it.

<Why worry about breathing, eating, or being incinerated?

	With Bill in the White House, we have no problems
	anymore. 

	My TV set told me so.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70386 ca.politics:10724
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Starting Trouble
Date: 28 Jan 93 23:27:42 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <14085@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>The violent fantasies that keep appearing in soc.motss (like the
>one below) are really worrisome.  Doesn't anyone get worried about
>this sort of emotional instability?  You would think that being
>on the receiving end of random violence would make homosexuals
>LESS supportive of it, instead of more:

Time to get consistent, Clayto....you've reported a number of times that the
ability to use a gun (great if permitted to be concealed) would thwart
violence against you or rape victims, and act as a preventive measure for
those who wanted to engage in violence (remember carjacking?) in the future.

Just goes to show how gays can be just like YOU.

Consistency: you and Ronzone could both use some.

And how about those Portland Trailblazers?  Gang banging two 16-year-olds in
Salt Lake City, and the front office says it's just boys being boys.  Gonna
take them on along with NAMBLA now?

Nah, I didn't think so.  That would demand consistency.

George Lambert
>
>In article <74130@cup.portal.com>, elc@cup.portal.com (Edward L Cole) writes:
>> I don't know if I *really* advocate violence but its great fuel
>> for fantasy. I relish the idea of gathering group of angry queers
>> together for an evening of random str8 bashing. I think the work 
>> of Queer Nation is a God-send. I adhere to this philosophy:
>> If you can't them, Hassle them!.
From: jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Yuppie Vacation Bill (WAS Re: Family Leave Bill
Date: 26 Jan 93 03:52:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <2503@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca 
(BOUCHER DAVID) writes:

>And the cost in lost productivity will naturally be borne by everyone.

Haven't some studies shown that an adequate amount of vacation time
*increases* productivity by reducing stress?  

I say, start everybody out with a month of paid vacation, and eventually
work our way up to the standards of civilized countries. 

-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton   jfh@netcom.com   P. O. Box 281107   SF, CA   94128-1107
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70010 alt.politics.clinton:21322
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THANK YOU, BILL!!! THANK YOU!!
Date: 28 Jan 1993 00:14:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (J. Morgan Morris) says:

>
>What is it exactly that you're saying? The only information that I can derive
>from this post is that you are a raving lunatic who goes into an autoerotic 
>frenzy when given a keyboard and a net connection...

     Yes, I know you can't derive it.  You voted for CLINTON!

     There's still time.  If I were you, I'd get that house on
     the market TODAY!  And you should move assets out of 
     country while it's still legal.


>Later,
>Morgan
>
>
>
>-- 
>
>John Morgan Morris
>Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
>Georgia State University
>University Plaza
>Atlanta, GA. 30303-3083
>
>Internet: matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu
>Telephone: (404) 651-2253
>FAX: (404) 651-2246
>
>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70159 talk.politics.medicine:730 soc.culture.usa:10205
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:14:16 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Followup-To: talk.politics.medicine
Organization: Deep Space Nine (DS9)

goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
>
>>If we fix the problem, distribute the money WE ARE ALREADY SPENDING
>>in an intelligent manner, might not the costs of many products drop?
>
>    Besides, do you really expect our goverment to spend our money
>    "in an intelligent manner"?

That's why you give people real insurance like in Canada, France and
Germany and let them figure it out for themselves with their private
doctor(s).

gld

PS: Please take this thread to Talk.politics.medicine ... there is
also a discussion of the Canadian basic health insurance approach
complete with ... geography lessons!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69421 alt.sex:42963 talk.religion.misc:27367
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Murder v. Sex
Date: 23 Jan 93 12:18:41 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <ARCHER.861.727728154@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.150849.1415@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>>Who is the injured party in prostitution?
>>>
>>>Cavalama.
>>
>>-------------------
>>You know that the age-old answer to that one is the spouse left at home,
>>and possibly endangered in these days of HIV. 
>
>Infection considerations aside, how is the spouse harmed?  
--------------
I wasn't promoting those answers, just presenting them, as the questioner
seemed to have no imagination at all. :)  But the argument goes that the
woman left at home is deprived of her husband's sexuality and that their
marital contract is being violated. Do you need a clue too???
-RSW

>
>>But they are not criminally
>>harmed unless someone knows they have HIV at the time. Funny how ignorance
>>amounts to non-guilt in a country where "ignorance of the law is no
>>excuse". 
>
>Ah, but ignorance of the law and ignorance of fact are two different 
>things.  If you are travelling 65 in a 55 mph zone, the fact that you don't 
>know that it is illegal does not excuse you.  The fact that you are unaware 
>that you are travelling 65 may.
>E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
-------------------------------
Actually neither one mitigates it. I ought to know, I tried that one on a
judge. Only case I ever lost in traffic court.
-RSW

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:68957 alt.activism:21133
From: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Date: 21 Jan 93 13:50:19 GMT
Reply-To: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1993Jan21.003041.11763@Princeton.EDU>,
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>In the United States, the Libertarian Party is the third
>>largest political party; in the 1992 elections it received
>>well over one million votes, and it regularly appears on the
>	   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>How do you figure?  Marrou got 250k votes.  Somehow I doubt there were
>750k people in the country who did *not* vote for Marrou, but did vote
>for another Libertarian.

Hint:  Read the text you are commenting on.  Pay particular attention to
the phrase "the 1992 elections".

Big hint:  While perhaps hundreds of millions of votes were cast for
Bush, Clinton, Marrou, Perot, and others in the general Presidential
election, there were probably billions of votes cast in the 1992
elections.

Outright spoiler for the hint-impaired:  Votes were cast in many 1992
elections other than the general Presidential election.


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@rusure.enet.dec.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69198 alt.atheism:26795 talk.religion.misc:27245
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 22 Jan 93 12:10:38 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1993Jan21.162625.17617@aber.ac.uk> jma@aber.ac.uk (Jonathan Michael Ashley) writes:

> Is this the same Ted "Tyre-Iron" Kaldis

This is America here.  In this country, the word is spelled "tire".
You Brits do as you like, but if you are going to address us Yanks,
please do us the courtesy of spelling the words as we would perceive
them to be spelled correctly.

> who made a famous post describing how he and one of his chums set
> about some chap with a tyre-iron for no apparent reason other than
> that he was gay?

In fact, it is not.  Neither I, nor anyone else that I would call my
"chum", would ever assault any individual with a threat of violence
such as this for _ANY_ reason.  (Of course, "self defense" falls
outside this usage of assault, but then "self-defense is hardly what
is being described above.)

> If it is, I sure hope no one sees fit to contaminate my mailbox with a
> copy of it.

Do not fret.  No one will, for the incident you describe never
occurred.

> Perhaps they could repost it here?

Alas, certainly not the post you are looking for, because it doesn't
exist.  (Now there was an account posted [about 4 years ago] of an
incident involving homosexuals and a tire iron, but I certainly never
committed the crime mentioned above.)

> PS Beware of following up to misc.test (which is in the distrib. of
> this post)

It was set just to alt.atheism here.
-- 
The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously   ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
as this would hold such views??? ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: National debt is not bad
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:03:24 GMT

In article <C16u87.MpI@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>Ted Frank (thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: So how would World War II have been funded?  Without a violation of
>: the Fifth Amendment, mind you.
>
>Issuing bonds and defecit spending are not the same thing.

Please, for the rest of us, explain the difference.

(Hint: they are the same thing.)

>: Agreed to a certain extent.  But budget deficits in a welfare state are
>: countercyclical, while government spending is directly correlated with
>: GNP.  Insisting on a balanced budget, in good times and bad, would 
>: exacerbate the business cycle.
>
>A balanced budget does not prevent the government from issuing bonds.

What's the difference between issuing bonds and borrowing money?

What do you think treasury bills are?
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69598 alt.activism:21301 alt.conspiracy:14585 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13740
From: Timothy.J.Young@dartmouth.edu (Timothy J. Young)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Privatization
Date: 25 Jan 93 01:25:39 GMT
 <1993Jan22.023654.15601@midway.uchicago.edu> 
 <1jutsoINNlf7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>  <C1Dpyt.639@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <C1Dpyt.639@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Timothy.J.Young@dartmouth.edu (Timothy J. Young) writes:

> > 
> >      Work, work my old job
> >        Take my place
> >          There's no fee
> > 
> >       I bailed out to go to class
> >           Being responsible, I think I'll pass
> > 
> >       I worked like a slave for years
> >           Sweat so hard just to end my fears
> >       But by now, I'm glad I ran.
> > 
-Those are NOT the words to the song!

Oh, are you OK? Are you still talking about going to Latin America?
Remember they used to talk about rich people fleeing to Cuba. Then
there was Castro.
Not that I like Castro, but you get my point. Here your property is
(relatively) safe when compared to those jungles. God knows what would
happen if Sendero Luminoso (no I'm not with MIM) ended up in Ecuador or
wherever else you planned on going. "Piece train?" Huh? 


Tim Young, Dartmouth College, Class of '96
"Not everyone can carry the weight of the world..." -R.E.M.
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth
College or any of its students...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69075 alt.politics.clinton:20869 alt.politics.economics:205
From: pbowden@missing.kludge.com (Pete Bowden)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Taxing & Spending
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 01:19:59 PST
Organization: The Missing Link BBS, Santa Maria, CA  805-925-1129

ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

> In article <1993Jan19.225453.1275@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy M
> >        companies are getting about 300% over "cost."  If you don't
> >        believe me, check it out.
> 
> Whatever happened to economy of scale?
> 
> Judy does have a point, though. But it merely begs the question. If
> the free market is killing off large inefficient organizations like GM
> and IBM, why should we tollerate so much larger and more inefficient
> an organization as the federal government of the United States?


Careful now...  that's starting to sound more republican or 
libertarian...  smaller government....  small businesses... less
government regulations...

--
pete@missing.kludge.com (Pete Bowden)  {SYStem OPerator}
The Missing Link BBS, (805) 925-1129
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69185 talk.politics.theory:5724 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13465
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: National debt is not necessarily bad
Date: 22 Jan 93 05:52:15 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago


In article <1993Jan22.052159.536@rigel.econ.uga.edu> depken@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Craig Depken) writes:
>Keywords: Economic illiteracy, UGA Economics, T-1440 daze of horror

Are you accusing me of economic illiteracy?  At least I know how to
word wrap my lines.  Please repost your article so that it's readable.
And avoid the ad hominems.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton