HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: equality of opportunity (was: Re: State Income Tax)
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:18:47 GMT

In article <casivils.727566659@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>If only 2% of the population would use vouchers then how is this the 
>dismanteling of the public school system that the libs claim it would be.

Gee, I'm not a 'lib' or a 'con' (does that mean that all Republicans
are ex-prison inmates?  ;-)), but I assume you mean OTHER than the 20%
or so who are currently already sending their kids to private schools
and would thus get a 'windfall' out of this while causing a
commensurate reduction in funds for public schools while they try to
carry the same student load?

>
>How can we be sure that this would do no good if we can't even have a pilot
>program.  Forget the fight for a national policy, the Dem stance is that we
>can't even have a pilot program.  Sheeez, tell me now whos being opinionated,
>close minded and making decisions without any basis on facts.

What's the point of piloting something that we don't want to do?  I
haven't seen any pilot programs for simply shutting down all the
schools and letting parents and kids fend for themselves, either, and
I would hope that I never do.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: CFC's and the ozone layer
Date: 24 Jan 93 05:04:02 GMT
 <y-Fks*wB1@caleb.UUCP> <1993Jan22.191312.22677@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1993Jan22.191312.22677@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

> Gee, Jim, Canada and Siberia aren't POLES, and it is colder in

I never said they were poles.

[...]

> Get a clue.  You're too stupid and boring to merit much effort, so
> far. 

Really?  Then why do you spend so much time (and net bandwidth) on me?  Lots
of folks here disagree with me on various issues (I'm not as "politically
correct" as you are.)  However, I doubt that they find me that boring.  If
you do, why don't you learn how to make a kill file?

I'd say the adjective stupid is more applicable to someone who appears to
believe every word that Clinton and Co. speak.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: CFC's and the ozone layer
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:13:12 GMT

In article <y-Fks*wB1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.143547.16637@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:
>
>> Might I suggest a brief course in wind patterns, Jim?  Briefly, CFCs
>> are relatively stable compounds.  That means they hang around a long
>> time.  There is a large cold pool of relatively still air over the
>> South Pole, particularly at certain times of the year.  Hence, CFCs
>> migrate to that area, breaking down the ozone in that area.  This is
>> like asking why, if power plants in the Northeast are the problem, do
>> we see the majority of the acid rain in Canada.  One would think you'd
>> never heard of WIND, Jim.
>
>Gee Fred, it is cold at the NORTH pole too!  It is cold in Canada and Siberia.

Gee, Jim, Canada and Siberia aren't POLES, and it is colder in
Antarctica than in any of those places.  It is also colder than at the
NORTH Pole, because there is LAND under the South Pole.  And, in case
you are too stpuid to figure it out, there is also an ozone hole at
the NORTH Pole, it just tends to not be as severe. 

>
>Get a life.

Get a clue.  You're too stupid and boring to merit much effort, so
far. 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jim McCoy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Colorado get Caller ID.
Date: 24 Jan 1993 02:54:54 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jim McCoy)
NNTP-Posting-Host: tramp.cc.utexas.edu
Originator: mccoy@tramp.cc.utexas.edu


In article <C19q3M.1GoJ@austin.ibm.com>, johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
> In article <1993Jan20.142738.3767@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> 
> |> Conversely, why should you be able to make ME pay in either money or
> |> convenience so as to keep from providing YOU with MY number when I
> |> call.
> 
> If I am the phone company, I can charge you whatever I want for whatever
>reason I want.  If you don't like it, then disconnect the damn phone. 

That is the problem here.  You seem to be laboring under the impression
that the phone company is the same as any other business.  It is not.  It
is currently a single-source common carrier for local phone traffic and
until there is an alternative the phone company will be a regulated
enterprise and if they have a problem with that they can just pack up and
find themselves another town to do business in.

A phone is a necessary implement for a great majority of the population
and an equally huge number of that population does not have the option to
choose someone else if they do not like thier local phone carrier.  The
phone infrastructure was built using a great deal of public capital in the
same sense that the railroads were.  These operations are responsible to
the public they serve.  If the regulators decide that the phone company
will not do something then the phone company has little choice in the
matter. 

jim

-- 
Jim McCoy                |  PGP 2.0 Key md5 hash:
mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |  61323c49024cb089337c78a05aafe8c6
j-mccoy@nwu.edu          |  finger mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu for public key
From: miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The Media (was Re: Who's weakening the constitution?)
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:06:32 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: Western Geo. - Div of Western Atlas Intn'l Inc., Houston, TX

In article <1993Jan25.140241.2863@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Ah, I see.  And here we missed it all this time.  Jim, and only Jim,
>is correct and capable of seeing what's going on, and the rest of us
>are only pitiful dupes.  Yes, it is the Divine Right of JIM. 

While I don't agree with everything that Jim has been saying in this thread
or the manner with which he has been carrying it, I must say that, IMHO, he
is *not* saying what you said above. You are too quick, Fred, to try to
show that followers of God are a haughty, arrogant bunch.

That and two quarters will get you a Coke from the soda machine.  :-)
--
Griff Miller > miller@monarch.wg3.waii.com < use this for email.

          *** My opinions are mine, not Western's. ***

   "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but 
    fools despise wisdom and discipline."   - Proverbs 1:7 
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com (Dewey Coffman)
Subject: How does Caller ID work?(Answer from alt.dcom.telecom)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:50:36 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM, Austin, TX. US of A.


>Does anyone know how caller ID works (ie. from a technical viewpoint)?

If you subscribe to and pay for the service, the data is sent in ASCII
at 1200 baud (but NOT the usual 1200 baud modem tones) between the
first and second rings.
-- 
Rich Greenberg      Work: rmg50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com   
........................................

Caller ID is actually included in the messaging protocol for CCITT 7
Common Channel Signalling that is in use in a good deal of Australia's
telephone network trunks. 

Every call that is made in the national network, from a CCS7 central
office exchange, includes the caller ID in the startup message. Due to
privacy laws here in Australia, that information has to be stripped
from the call when it is directed overseas, and is discarded (except
for billing purposes) within the Australian network. 

When you pick up your everyday analog phone handset, your number is
included in the message that will eventually connect you to the called
number, by the central exchange once it connects your line to a trunk. 
To transmit the caller ID to the telephone requires some
additional hardware and software in the central office exchange, as
well as a receiving device at the phone. Your caller ID is always
transmitted along the trunks, it just does not get transmitted down
the lines.

ISDN describes a digital signalling method to allow lines to transmit
digital information. Once an ISDN call is connected to a central
exchange, the messaging can be transmitted on nearly any of the CCITT
7 protocol trunks that are currently in use, not just ISDN trunks.
-- 
Jak Grimm                     _--_|\         jak@zikzak.apana.org.au

........................................
The CNI spec that we have says that the information MAY be transmitted
BEFORE the first ring.  The price of caller-id is eternal vigilance!

ronal@telebit.com                These ain't no opinions but my own!
Newsgroups: tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: amn@sdf.lonestar.org (Andrew Noble)
Subject: Re: equality of opportunity  (was: Re: State Income Tax)
Organization: SDF - Public Access Unix - Dallas, Tx..
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:35:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.143008.9208@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>And here we see the root of the problem some of us have with voucher
>proponents; their fine disregard for the effect on THE STUDENTS of
>"the public school system folding".  What about all those kids for
>whom there are not seats in one of your nice, competitive private
>school system as you suck money out of the public school system to
>fund it?  Oh, silly me.  They don't matter.

Re-read this paragraph.  Competitive private schools sucking money out of the
public ones?  The thing that strikes me funny here is that a private school
distinguishes itself from a public one by NOT accecpting money from the public
sector, hence the designation private.
 
I also believe that the argument for vouchers, provides for the students TO 
attend the private schools.  One of the strongest reasons that private schools
exist is that the public educational system is poor (in that area).  Private
schools provide additional options for education (albiet at a great expense).
The voucher system helps to alleviate that extra expense, so that a greater
number of students can be able to attend.
 
amn


-- 
  _     Andrew Noble
 | |__  Dallas, Texas
_|  * | amn@sdf.lonestar.org
\   _/  Compuserve: 71165,412
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: CFC's and the ozone layer
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:42:41 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <y-ols*vC1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <1993Jan22.191312.22677@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

>> Gee, Jim, Canada and Siberia aren't POLES, and it is colder in

>I never said they were poles.

>[...]

>> Get a clue.  You're too stupid and boring to merit much effort, so
>> far. 

>Really?  Then why do you spend so much time (and net bandwidth) on me?  Lots
>of folks here disagree with me on various issues (I'm not as "politically
>correct" as you are.)  However, I doubt that they find me that boring.  If
>you do, why don't you learn how to make a kill file?

Where do you get the idea that I spend "so much time" on you, Jim?
You're so shallow and inept that you don't require any real time at
all.  I mean, it's not like responding to a real person; you still
come across as to shallow and unthinking to be one.  

>I'd say the adjective stupid is more applicable to someone who appears to
>believe every word that Clinton and Co. speak.

I would say it's more applicable to someone who can't judge
appearances any better than you apparently do.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: equality of opportunity (was: Re: State Income Tax)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 20:39:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

(BTW, Distribution: usa,tx doesn't make sense. I removed the ",tx".]

In article <1993Jan27.144447.13478@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>To ask the question is to assume that ALL public schools are
>absolutely as bad as they can possibly get.  They aren't.  To support
>'choice' through that assumption is simply admitting that you're going
>to abandon the people who can't get out to a deteriorating system
>whose deterioration you are going to accelerate.

To oppose choice on this assumption is to assume that there will be people who
can't get out.  A properly designed system won't have that problem.

Yes, I think it's valid to assume that ALL public schools can well be that
bad.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    "begin 666 foo 266]U(&AA=F4@;F\@;&EF92X: ` end" -- Daniel Drucker
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: State Income Tax
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:46:17 GMT

In <pV4ls*eC1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <1993Jan19.232339.17006@montagar.com>, David L. Cathey writes:

>> 	Hell, cut out the middle man (the Fed), and let the rich spend, spend,
>> spend on products that workers like us provide and put wages into our pockets.
>> Joe Employee is more likely to see a cut from a dollar spent on a yacht, than
>> from the luxury tax that was placed upon it.

>That sounds like "Trickle Down Economics."  Reagan tried it.  It worked beyond
>anyone's expectations.  So the liberal media simply rewrote history using the
>time tested Goebbels technique.  (If you tell a big enough lie, loud enough,
>and long enough, people will start to believe it.)  When the next down
>cycle came, the media told everyone that it was caused by Reaganomics.  Many
>people still believe that nonsense.  (Just wait until they start flaming me
>for typing this...)

Gee, that sounds like the Jim Pritchett Usenet posting method; simply
tell a large lie many times.

>> 
>> 	Something like a "Free Enterprise" system could probably work.

>It does - if government stays out of the way.

Well, it works for SOME.  If you examine the numbers, you will find
that 20% or so are much *worse* off after 8 years of Reagan than they
were before.  Unfortunately, a rising tide only floats those who
already had boats.  Even if it's raining soup (and it didn't work THAT
well, Jim), it doesn't much help people who are so poor they don't
have anything to catch it in.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The Biased Media
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:23:14 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <C189HK.Anu@sugar.neosoft.com>, rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
> In article <C15wGv.1qB4@austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
> 	Bush ran a horrible campaign. The people believed Clinton was
> the best choice for President. This opinion of the majority of American
> voters- you claim that media, and media alone, is responsible? Did
> Bush utilize the debates to effectively disarm any media misrepresentations?

	I think the media did bias the election.  Not the news media, but 
venues.  Arsenio was always bashing Bush, as were his guests.  Clinton seemed
to be some sort of Saint.

	Look at some of the media today - There is a lot of messages that
America is turning around.  Clinton has lauded several programs that help
inner city problems, and there is much rejoicing, since the people see promise
in tomorrow...  Praise be to Clinton!

	But Clinton hasn't DONE anything!  All he has really done is be a
cheerleader, and WE are solving our own problems.  Clinton hasn't started 
those programs (i.e. City Year).  There was even a priest in D.C. that had
a "Homeless Inaugural Ball", and was proclaiming how helpful Clinton will be
to the plight of the homeless, like Clinton actually DID anything or even knew
about the Homeless Ball.

	I'm glad America looks like it might turn itself around, but so far
it has been the People, not Clinton, that has performed this.  We are helping
each other, and the Executive Branch wasn't in the lead.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
Newsgroups: tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:04:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.172302.25504@raid.dell.com> mikepb@lupus.dell.com writes:
>Claiming he would not raise taxes for the middle-class.  Claiming that he
>would reduce the deficit 50% by 1997.  Claiming that he could fund all
>these neat programs.  You do not think this is an action?  It is as much an
>action as someone claiming they will do bodily harm do another.  The fact
>that he said he would do these things, and now claims they can't be done is
>proof that he is either, an incompetant moron who doesn't know what he is
>talking about (either now or before or both), or a liar who never intended
>to do these things.  And you and others like you, who wanted change, will
>find that the only change is the leanings of the Executive branch.  The
>deficit will rise, taxes will rise!

Lets see now:

Reagan said he would reduce the deficit 100% by 1983.
Bush said READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES.

You have just stated that both Ronald Reagan and George Bush are either

>an incompetant moron who doesn't know what he is
>talking about (either now or before or both), or a liar who never intended
>to do these things.  

My view is that Ronald Reagan was the first of these [in regards to the 
deficit], and George Bush was the second [in regards to taxes].

One more clue why the Republicans lost the election.

-- 
Tom Kimball              What's confusing you is the nature of my game.
tom@europa.lonestar.org             - The Rolling Stones
tom@europa.lerctr.org	           "Sympathy for the Devil"
Newsgroups: tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: amn@sdf.lonestar.org (Andrew Noble)
Subject: Re: equality of opportunity  (was: Re: State Income Tax)
Organization: SDF - Public Access Unix - Dallas, Tx..
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:35:22 GMT


RE: I sometimes wonder if some of today's critics of multi-culturalism have
ever read a newspaper, or whether they get all their information from
Rush Limbaugh.
 
Not to add fuel to an anti-limbaugh flame, but at least you can be assured that
information from Rush Limbaugh is at least originated from fact. (assuming
that you can recognize his comedy)
 
As opposed to his opponents: the sources of their information is vague at best.
 
Just my $.02
 
amn
-- 
  _     Andrew Noble
 | |__  Dallas, Texas
_|  * | amn@sdf.lonestar.org
\   _/  Compuserve: 71165,412
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: State Income Tax
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas
Distribution: tx
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:53:04 GMT

In article <1jt1kbINNnfa@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jim McCoy) writes:
>You have a serious problem with reality.  A serious problem.  It is
>impossible to argue this point because it seems that you are so wrapped up
>in your own little fantasy world that no amount of reason will do any good.
>Anything that is said or proven to refute the beliefs that you cling too
>will be rejected as propoganda, lies, and misinterpretation (BTW, nice
>touch there calling it the "Goebbels technique", adds the right amount of
>foaming-at-the-mouth indignation with a cheap tie in to the Nazi party.
>Cute.)

Glad to see you opened with a nice round of objective facts.  Hell, I
was worried Trickle Down actually worked!  I'm so happy you set him
straight ...

>        How exactly is it that trickle down economics worked (we'll skip
>the "beyond anyone's expectations" bullshit as just a little creative
>license on your part) and why is it that during the past 12 years the rich
>got richer and the poor descended deeper into poverty?  This is a fact.
>Interpret it as you will, but how does it fit into the little fantasy world
>you have woven? 

This is not a fact.  During the Reagan/Bush years, ON AVERAGE, not only
did the poor get richer, but so too did the rich.  I've repeatedly posted
the numbers and they show that the lower quartile's average income in
constant dollars increased throughout the Reagan/Bush years.  What is
often used to "disprove" that Reagan/Bush did any good is the pre-Carter
level of wealth.  See, Carter reduced the average income of the lower
quartile, expanding the population below a fixed dollar level of $15K.
If you take 1981 to 1993 income levels and compare them to 1977 to 1981
levels, Reagan/Bush was an incredible success.  Another popular trick is
to blame Reagan for the economic mess which took the first few years of
his administration to fix.  This is why Reagan's average unemployment is
greater than Carter's.  Look at the trend under both administrations.
Under Carter, the unemployment and inflation rates trended upwards.
Under Reagan/Bush, they declined.

And not only in terms of personal income, this country has once again
resumed its position as the leading exporter and industrial producer.
An enviable position which Carter helped us relinquish.  In every
reasonable measure - cleaner environment, improved health, wealth,
standard of living, etc. - Reagan/Bush was a resounding success.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org

The DDT ban has killed more Africans than the AIDS epidemic.  Legalize DDT now.
Newsgroups: tx.politics