HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 08:20:03 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Wed,
              6 Jan 1993 01:48:00 EDT from CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA>
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

From:
*** Resending note of 01/06/93 00:51

From -T
I assume that when Robert says "word of god" he means the Bible (with some
"true believers", "word of god" can mean whatever they want it to mean).  I've
always been curious to know where in that Bible homosexuality is defined as:

        A.  A choice of sexual action
        B.  A perversion
        C.  A sin
        D.  Against the word of god

From Robert
That's Word with a "W" and God with a "G".  Leviticus 18:22 specifically says
you are not to engage in homosexuality.  If you're not to do it, then you
evidently have (1) the choice to do otherwise.  It also says the act is an
abomination (2) perversion.  To go against the Word is (3) a sin.  The
Bible is the Word so (4) you're against it.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Uncl: RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:36:19 GMT

"Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET> writes:

[...]
>    Homosexual behavior is not only
>   unnatural, but it is dangerous to both partners.
[...]

Lesbian homosexual behavior is safer that hetrosexual behavior.

- Carl K.

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
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:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:06:45 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Some discoveries and proposals
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        Jamie proceeds to be quite childish, but I'll just post this to let him
know (so he doesn't assume :) that yes, I am ignoring you.

Brett'
(Now you can change the meaning of the word "ignore", assert some things I
never said, and loudly proclaim that you've proven 2+2=5)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 09:03:22 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: school daze

Hi again, y'all:
David Clem wrote:

>2) If you answer "yes" to 1), can such reform be done internally?
>I don't think so. I believe only the pressure
>generated from losing students and resources (money), caused by a real
>choice program would enable such reform. Let a competitive marketplace
>work to improve all (surviving) schools.
>
>3) Is education a proper function of govt.?
>I'm inclined to say no. I'd like to see some experiments with completely
>private education before concluding that, however. Perhaps I'm assuming
>too much rationality and generousity from people.

This week's _The New Republic_ has a couple interesting articles -- a long
one on Chris Whittle's Edison Project and a shorter one about a company (I
don't remember the name) that has contracted to take over 9 public schools
in Baltimore, reform them, and still make a profit.  Among the points
raised is that building, staffing, and running schools for profit is a very
expensive enterprise.  The author of the Edison Project article estimates
that Whittle will need to charge up to $8000 per student in order to have a
net per-pupil expenditure anywhere near that of public, private, and
parochial schools.  And he'll need to have classes of up to 40 students per
teacher.

I get the impression sometimes that "competitive marketplace" is supposed
to be some kind of miracle cure for education -- but that we have
relatively little evidence to support that idea.  I also recognize that we
already have much of the knowledge we need to improve public schools, but
don't seem to be doing much to implement the changes we know would work.
And the reasons range from unwillingness to make the necessary financial
investment to unwillingness to make the necessary investment of time, to
problems with union contracts, bloated bureaucracies, etc.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:50:09 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: can oil do that?

On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:39:00 EST linda said:
>ok, who knows about chemistry?
>
>fred said that some british guy said, that since the oil spilled over there
>was "lighter" it should evaporate. i did not think oil could evaporate.
>so, somebody, ans. please....can oil evaporate???
>
>-linda

Here it goes.  Anything that SMELLS can and will evaporate.  Oils
do evaporate.  Of course the lighter the oil the easier it evaporates.

Oh, wait a minute.  I think I know where you are coming from.  Oils
as in cooking oils do not readily evaporate but petroleum oils (aka
hydrocarbons) do evaporate easily.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:37:59 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: re: school daze
              12 Jan 1993 18:13:13 GMT from <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

On Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:13:13 GMT Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales said:
>
>A confession: I generally don't bother to keep my checking account
>balance to the penny, and I NEVER muck around with my statement at
>the end of the month.  See, I know about how much money I have in the
>bank, and I keep a running estimate in my head.

Jimbo, I didn't know that you went to the Bob Newhart School of Accountancy.

>--Jimbo

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:57:00 EST
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Packwood & Clinton - Compare

   Some on this list are advocating that Packwood stalled the discussion
about his misconduct until the elections were over and that this was
dishonest, bad and so on.  What about Clinton?  It seems as if every night
on the news the past two weeks the stories have been "Clinton said this
before, now after he is saying this" on issue after issue.  Is Clinton a
bad boy too?  I'm waiting to hear the justifications.

Carl---+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:19:30 EST
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: philosopher cards - starter set

On Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:26:29 EST Evelyn Duncan said:
>Very nice, but you forgot Marx.  Or is he in the more advanced set?
>
Marx is in the economists trading card set.  Look for it soon from
Invisible Hand Enterprises, Inc. (TM).
    toddddddddddddd
>Evelyn Duncan

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "Maybe fear, like pain, is
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   God's way of hurting us."
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    -FIRESIGN THEATER
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:55:00 EST
From:         bone machine <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: can oil do that?
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>The report I heard on NPR was that a Scottish expert (can't remember the name)
>predicted the damage would still be particularly heavy because the prevailing
>currents and storm conditions would tend to send the oil shoreward.

That's what I heard as well.  In fact, on the news recently (forgot which
network), it was reported that the winds, already at near-hurricane force
and getting worse, were blowing oil inland, and there was talk that the sheep
and cattle on the island might have to be evacuated [*], else they be
poisoned by the oil.

As for the question of evaporating oil that linda and fred (and others) had,
this has been already answered.  The oil that the Exxon Valdez was carrying
was a heavy crude, and did not evaporate as much, while the oil in this
situation is light Norwegian crude, which means more of it is likely to
evaporate. (the operative word is "more", NOT "all", about 40%, if I
remember correctly.  Still more would break up in the ocean, and the rest
would threaten the Shetlands' bird sanctuaries, along with fisheries and
so on.)

>                                                        Dan, ad nauseum

Gary W. Olson                 "Next week's broadcast will be on government
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   interference in broadcasting and will be
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET            mysteriously cancelled." - Eric Idle, MPFC

[*] feel free to make up your own joke.
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:16:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: can oil do that?

>  not to mention that they problems they're having with cleanup is the
>weather - a major storm is in progress. this should disperse some of
i>t quite well, reducing the scope of the problem.
>
>rtf

Actually, I watched North Tonight last night, the Scottish News broadcast;
they said that since their primary objective was to spray chemical
dispersal (from planes flying 20-30 feet above the slick), the storm was
not good news.

They were reporting that the inclement weather would hinder this work, thereby
increasing the scope of the problem.


-T.
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:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:19:28 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: logical error
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG" at Dec 22, 92 5:02 pm

>>
>> China runs a market economy?????

China has introduced *some* market into the economy, and de-facto private
agriculture has been a great success. More and more industrial enterprises
are run in a capitalistic way ( they can hire whoever they want, pay them
high or low, buy and sell products almost freely).
The stock exchanges are reopen in the whole country.


>> Even a limited privatisation can drastically raise the
>> living standards.

That's right. And mass privatisation can treble the efect. That's what we want,
raise our living standards, don't we?

>> As to nazis, they are not against free market. True, in Nazi Germany
>> the state and industry were closely intertwined, but the state didn't
>> control the whole economy.

The Nazis have controled the banks and havy industries, they didn't control
the banana markets.

>> Sam.
>>

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:16:14 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject: Re: Bob Packwood - A Bad Boy?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> I have to agree with Carl*.  Packwood did apologize.  His attitude
> was NOT}i"Gee, IF I did something wrong, THEN I apologize," rather
> he clearly admitted that he was wrong and was sorry for it.
That was not my impression.  I don't think that he said that he
was sorry for sexually harrassing anyone.
>
> Now, I don't know if being sorry and admitting you have been wrong
> is enough (but it is sure more than many people would do.)
It sure was politically expedient.
>
> Additionally it seems to me that what Packwood has done is very bad but could
> be worse.   Before some of you jump on me let me say that for example he
> did not use his office and power to coerce women.
That's not true.  He did not explicitly use the power of his office to coerce
women, but it was definitely implicit.  He was/is the boss.  He is a
powerful congressperson.  What does it mean to say 'no' to him?
>
> My personal opinion is that the efforts to make him resign is simply
> playing power politics.  It has definitely gone past achieving justice.
I don't agree.  I think that he has shown that he is a poor representative.
As proof of that, I would point to the people of Oregon who re-elected him
by a slim majority.  If this had come out, he would have lost, perhaps
decisively.  He is holding an office that he does not deserve to hold.
>
> Ironically, *I* think it would serve the "women's movement" better if
> he is forgiven and allowed to finish his term and let the people of
> Oregon decide if he should be reappointed.  Letting him stay would
> affirm that women are not for revenge but for equality and respect.
No.  I don't agree. He sexually harrased at least 15 women.  He deserves
to be in prison.
>
> There is however one little problem here.  Packwood played loose with
> facts so that he could get reelected.  That is a sin alright, but it
> is not against women per se, bust against all voters.  The punishment
> for THAT sin, I don't know.
He shouldn't have been seated.  He should be recalled. That is the penalty.
>
> --KAT *who has to ho to hospital because he bite his tongue when he said
>       he agrees with Carl   :-)
>
Jonathan
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:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:47:17 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: conservatism
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              21, 92 10:39 am

>>
>> Radical reform is the antithesis of conservatism.
>>
Yes, that's right.

In the past, when our world WAS conservative, the conservatives tried to STOP
or SLOW reforms, while the reformers wanted to speed them up.

They disagreed about the SPEED of reforms.

Now, all political parties talk about reforms.
The disagree about the DIRECTION.

The conservatives still do not accept radical reforms, because they know the
results.

Every revolution is financed from plunder.

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:31:16 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Privatizations and standard of living

>Other example: some sectors on the economies in Eastern Europe (Poland,
>Hungary, Czekoslovakia) have been massivily privatized in 1989/90, and
>they are performing surprisingly well. (It wasn't a surprise to me, in fact)
>Caius

  And privatization was a real blessing for the East Germans,
too, wasn't it.

  Why are y'all playing so naive and simplistic over this?
Do you really, honestly believe that the economic successes
and failures are strongly and directly correlated to privatization
vs socialization?  Or do you think that maybe social structures,
corruption, natural resources, culture conditions, and economic
competition or bullying from neighbors might also play a role.

  We're all educated people, here.  Okay, some of us are educated
people here.  How 'bout we play to the best of us, instead of the
lowest common denominator.  How 'bout an intelligent discussion of
issues instead of this absurd political posturing?

  (Or maybe we could drag in all the others and discuss whether
predominantly christian or predominantly muslim nations have
better economies.)

                             -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:27:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Brett's dubious propositions

Brett':
>>result from laws which should be struck down?
>>Like...?  Crimes need *proof*.  What exactly does proof of thought
>>constitute?

Jamie:
>
>Like... murder. To prove someone guilty of murder, you have to prove
>that he had a certain intent. Next question.

I'm not sure Jamie would let anyone else get away with this, so....


1. Without qualification regarding actual charge, your statement is inaccurate.
   Only certain degrees need proof of intent.

2. "He" had a certain intent?  Exclusive language?  ???


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:48:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott

Robert says:

>                                                       Homosexuality is a
>perversion and is explicitly against the Word of "G"od.  It is no more of a
>sin than any other sin, but it is a sin.

I assume that when Robert says "word of god" he means the Bible (with some
"true believers", "word of god" can mean whatever they want it to mean).  I've
always been curious to know where in that Bible homosexuality is defined as:

        A.  A choice of sexual action
        B.  A perversion
        C.  A sin
        D.  Against the word of god

I would honestly  be interested in some _references_, not a mountain of quotes,
if you please.

Robert also says:
>                                       Live your life as you choose, but
>don't look for solace or approval from me.

That's interesting....sounds like not only a direct contradiction to the "word
of god" (rather, the voice of Jesus as written in the Bible) but a kind of
renunciation of that word.  I sometimes get confused on this particular point:
Are "christians" the ones who try to live _like Jesus_, or are they the ones
who try to live in direct _contradiction_ to Jesus?  Their conflicting actions
and beliefs really fuel that confusion.

-T.


"The important religious distinction is not between those who worship and those
who do not worship but between those who love and those who don't."

                        -DeMello.H
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 12:27:41 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: nambla
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Jonathan,
> if the word "loving" means only sex to you, than you surely misunderstood
> what I meant. I thought these two words exist to describe two different
> things. I think it's just a matter of semantics. I believe that it's OK to
> be sexually attracted to minors as long as the feeling doesn't lead to
> a crime of rape.
> Sam.
>

Sam,
It's pretty easy to misunderstand what you meant, when you keep deleting
the relevant portion of my question (which is repeated, again, below).
My question to you is, why do you keep misrepresenting what you have
posted?  If you mistyped, then say so.  If you don't believe it any
more, then say so. But don't misrepresent what you said.
Look at your third sentence below, "It is wrong to molest children,
but not to love them, even sexually".


----- Begin Included Message -----
> I think it's unfair to mention NAMBLA in a company of unsavory groups.
> I believe that there is nothing wrong about loving children (that's
> all NAMBLA is about). It is wrong to molest children, but not to love
> them, even sexually. NAMBLA is created as a support group for people
> who are attracted to children. It is not a cabal of child molesters.
>
> Sam.
>
I don't know about the rest of you, but this whole paragraph is a
mass of contradictions to me.  Please explain to me how one could
have sex with children but not be molesting them.

Jonathan


----- End Included Message -----


Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:46:04 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      State of the Empire State

Governor Cuomo has just finished delivering his State of the State
message to the legislature.  I won't re-hash it since excerpts will
be in the New York Times tomorrow and you can read them if you're
interested (the complete text is available from the Governor's office
in Albany--518/474-8390 if you're REALLY interested).

One of the more intriguing proposals that he set forth had to do with
local school districts and taxes:  He proposes allowing school districts
to switch from property taxes to income taxes on district residents
to raise their revenues.  He wants to make this an option for the
districts, not a requirement so that each district could make its
own decision.

In theory, this is an appealing idea (since it seems to me that property
taxes can be quite unfair and almost arbitrary at times).  In practice,
however, there seem to be a number of logistical problems with this
proposal, particularly with the proposal that it be an option which
would mean that you could face a lot of confusion if neighboring districts
made different decisions (in New York, town and school district boundaries
are not always the same).  It would also, I suspect, make the state's
already convoluted school aid formula even more convoluted.

Is anyone aware of any states that currently offer an income tax in
lieu of a property tax option to school districts and if so, have they
been successful?  Is anyone aware of other proposals at the state level
to allow school districts to move away from property taxes to income
taxes?  Any thoughts on Cuomo's proposal?

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:51:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Visit Colorado - #2

From Carl Lahetta:

>Homosexuals earn more than the average american, have a higher educational
>level than the average american, and hold higher job positions than the
>average american.

I'd be curious to know where you got these ideas, Carl.   I hadn't heard this
before - was it census?


>All admendment 2 was passed for was to deny homosexuals a minority status.

Wrong.  Amendment 2 denied Coloradians the right to officially recognize
sexual preference as a protected minority, if they ever decided to do so
in the future.  It is a _prohibitive_ amendment - and on that basis alone
is objectionable.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:47:19 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott

From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> From KAT
> ....................................... husband should be sanctioned
> against.  Why blame the homosexuality (or bisexuality), why not
> blame being dishonest with your wife?

> From Robert
> Being dishonest, although wrong, does not cause disease.  ...........

THEN, neither does homosexual acts.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU