HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Property Ownership and Usage
Date: 23 Nov 92 05:29:29 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

The following comprises the tenant of property as set forth by
the original poster:

________________________________________________________________________

2. PROPERTY
   Property consists of three parts:
   a. Your body.
   b. Your mind and ideas, concepts, expressions, and mental derivitives.
   c. Your tangible derivitives, your physically present material items.
________________________________________________________________________

First, I think the word is derivative(s) and since it appears twice I
will assume you do not know the correct spelling.

a. Your body- well in a egocentric ideology this would appear to be
true.  But within a world view, you are a caretaker and temporary
user of your body.  It will be reclaimed by the world as a whole,
this is unavoidable.  But if you wish to operate under the concept 
of egotism- then we will say this is true.

b. Well most of your ideas, concepts, expressions probably belong to
the originator of these things. For instance the concept of gravity
or orbital motion of planets does not belong to me per se, it is if
you wish, belongs to the one who first conceptualize and then passed
that knowledge along.  Mental derivatives may be your own, if it turns
out that it is a new creation. But there are philosophers who will 
argue that everything already exist, and we are just treasure hunters.

c. I suppose this boils down to what a person physically owes. Well
this is true within the context of our societal setting.  But if we
obtained property via someone who coerced it from someone else, then
where do we draw the line.  And physically present materials poses the
problem of the natural material items that may be present in the
physical setting of materials that we have acquired.  For example,
if I purchase a piece of land and it contains items that were already
there, without my help, such as trees, animals etc., do I own them?
Much of what we own is a product of our endeavors, but some of it
exist already, and I can hypothesis that it does not belong to us
except within what the society has stated as boundary values for
ownership.

Of the fundamental thoughts which surround ownership and placing one's
flag of conquest upon it. Your mind and ideas, concepts, expressions,
and mental derivatives, again arise from the capitalist concepts of
product.  At this point it is easy to fail in understanding that most
(if not all in some cases) of our knowledge is inherited from others.
We first construct our thinking and discriminations based upon those
concepts and ideas that appeal and/or influenece us the most.  It is
from this point that we may claim 'ownership' of the above, but to 
what avail?  Physically tangentable materials?  We may at best be
considered care-takers of all material things.  We do not posses
them, we use them, and hopefully care for them, so that future
generations may have the opportunity to utilize them as well.
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: Rick_Donnelly@taligent.com (Rick Donnelly)
Subject: Re: Wilson recall campaign info
Organization: Taligent, Inc.
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 03:05:47 GMT


> 1) Both Willie Brown and David Roberti are recallable. Not on a statewide
> basis, but in the districts they represent.

Elected officials cannot be recalled in the 6 months after they are
elected, or within 6 months of a coming election for their position.

As a practical matter, of course, neither is recallable.  As senior
members of the Legislature, they are able to "bring home the bacon"
to their respective districts; a new person would not be able to do
this.  Hopefully term limits will bring an end to this sort of thing.

Bite 'em Back's current strategy is not to recall Brown or Roberti,
but rather to remove them from their leadership roles.  In particular,
the Assembly elects its speaker this January, and if enough people
write to their Assemblypersons to say that they don't want Brown as
speaker anymore, it is possible that the Assembly might elect someone
else to that position.

Rick Donnelly                            My opinions, not Taligent's.
Rick_Donnelly@taligent.com
From: jrd@frame.com (James Drew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: A Strand of Bigotry
Date: 19 Nov 1992 13:03:52 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Clayton Crame (cramer@optilink.UUCP), sigh, writes:

># THERE IS NO RIGHT TO PRACTICE BIGOTRY. 
>
>So why is there a right to practice sodomy?

Bigotry is a non-consensual activity, one person imposing their beliefs on
another without permission.

Sodomy (be it just anal sex, or oral as well) is a consensual act.  If it is
non-consensual, then it is rape.

Inalienable rights include "the pursuit of happiness," with unwritten addition
of "without unduly affecting the happiness pursuits of others."  I think there
is little question that public bigotry affects the happiness pursuits of
others.  Private sodomy, however, can *not* affect the happiness pursuits of
others, for the simple fact that it is *private.*  If its existence affects
your pursuit of happiness, then either the particular event of sodomy is not
private (in which case it should be as legal/illegal as "straight" sex), or
the effect it is having on your pursuit of happiness is mental in nature, and
of your own doing, in which case is *your* fault you are unable to fully
pursue happiness, and the law cannot do anything about *that*.

The phrase that pays is "An it harm none."  Live by it.

------------------------------
                             |     We guided the guy dressed as a nun up Dore
Jim Drew                     | Alley, to see the dead guy dressed as a nun.
jrd@frame.com                |     "Oh, this isn't one of *us,*" he said, and
(Furry: Randy Puritan)       | started patting down the dead nun's habit, until
"Innocent, but not naive."   | he found a silver flask of alcohol.
B2h t w- c k s g+(p) rv p    |     "We're the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.
S8/5 g l+ y+ o+ a+ u++- j++  | This used to be one of the Sisters of Perpetual
{opinions: mine != frame's}  | Inebriation.  They're down at the other end of
                             | the fair.
                             |		- Marc Lynx, "Awl's Fare"
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: bondi@dri.com (Bob Bondi)
Subject: Enough is enough is enough is enough is .........................
Organization: Novell
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 18:32:30 GMT

Why don't all you homo loving conversationalists create a special group for
your views? I subscribed to CA.POLITICS for discussions on politics. Not a
raging argument between those who like/dislike homosexual behavior!

I guess this means I'll get all kinds of crap for this idea, but, you all are
really saying the same stupid things over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
when will you ever get tired of it?

Thanks.
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
From: kmd@fico.uucp
Subject: How much longer will we allow this to be a forum for Claytons homophobi          rantings?  Can we get back to (gasp) politics?
Keywords: Homophobe, narrow minded, bigot, nosey, pathetic
Reply-To: kmd@fico.UUCP (Kathleen Dietrick) 
Organization: The Fair, Isaac Companies, San Rafael, California
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 19:08:35 GMT

(Claytons nonsense deleted)


Okay folks, just how long are you all going to pay attention to this sick
twisted little man shouting his opinions?
The more you respond the more validity you give him. 
There isn't any net group for his sort that I am aware of-and I thought that
this was a political forum.

Besides, he isn't even amusing any more - he is just a broken record.


Cheers!






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it and finds
himself no wiser than before, he is full of murderous resentment of people who 
are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way"

							Kurt Vonnegut
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Who's Gunning for Dianne Feinstein's Senate Seat?
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: ca
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 04:52:44 GMT


	The election is just over, and already they're trying to
decide who's up for the next elections.

	Dianne Feinstein's term will end in 1994, and already, there
is talk about who will run then. DF herself is expected to run for
re-election, while on the Republican side, there is discussion on who
will challenge her. Already, there are two names mentioned: Bob Dornan
and John Dannemeyer, both Southern California right-wingers and
fervent homophobes. I'm sure that both are itching to associate DF
with San Francisco (she was actually mayor) and the sexual preference
of many of that city's inhabitants.

	This makes me wonder about Richard Seymour, Tom Campbell and
Bruce Herschensohn, losers in this year's race.

	If she gets any hard-boiled right-wingers as challengers, then
I hope she's willing to give them a taste of their own
negative-campaign medicine. Boxer almost lost by not doing so until
the last minute. Maybe we'll have some more last-minute revelations of
sexual peccadilloes, complete with pathetic defenses of the "I went
there to buy the Far Eastern Economic Review" / "I only read Playboy
for the intervews" / "I didn't inhale" variety.

	Yes, I know that's mudslinging, but it is legitimate
mudslinging against would-be champions of "Family Values"; why should
they lecture the rest of us about "morality" when they can't even keep
their own house in order?

	Barbara Boxer's turn will only come in 1998, which is a long
time off.

	It is worth noting that these are the first two women to be
sent to the Senate by California. A woman had ran before these two, in
1950: Helen Gahagan Douglas, a liberal Democrat, against Richard
Nixon. He shamelessly Red-baited her as the "Pink Lady" -- and won. It
is not surprising that he became known as "Tricky Dick".
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: More Evidence That Homosexuality Is A Result of Child Sexual Abuse
Date: 18 Nov 92 08:09:51 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <13214@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
[some discussion about child sexual abuse and homosexuality deleted]
> On the subject of sexual deviance, Haugaard and Reppuci 
> discuss some of the consequences.  The first section addresses
> the question of, "I've been homosexual since before puberty,"
> claim that has frequently been made:
> 
>     When Gagnon (1965) made an extensive analysis of the
>     Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, and Gebhard (1953) data, he
>     compared girls who had experienced ongoing abuse with
>     those who had only one "accidental" abusive contact
>     with a stranger.  He found a similar pattern of peer
>     sexual play before the abuse occurred and a higher level
>     of homosexual peer sexual play by the girls experiencing
>     onging abuse once it began.[Haugaard and Reppuci, 71.]

Is it my reading skills, or does this really have nothing to do with the
question of the "I've been homosexual since before puberty" claim?  First of
all, those claims have primarily been made by men, not women, and yet this
survey discusses women.  Secondly, these are all victims of sexual abuse,
and yet there are any number of men who have made the claim that they've
been homosexual since before puberty who were not molested as children.

Unless you pre-suppose that all homosexuals were molested as children, a claim
that no reputable psychologist or psychiatrist supports, this passage is
completely irrelevant.

> The list of problems experienced by child sexual abuse 
> victims should sound familiar to readers of soc.motss 
> (and also readers of alt.sex, for that matter):
> 
>     Difficulties in adult sexual adjustment are common in
>     abuse victims.  Bess and Janssen (1982) found that 70
>     percent of their sample of ten psychiatric patients who
>     were abused as children, compared with 18 percent of
>     twenty-two non-abused psychiatric patients, reported
>     adult sexual impairment or variant sexual practices
>     as an adult.  The impairments included prostitution,
>     no sex during a marriage, ego-dystonic homosexuality,
>     impotence, and transvestism.[Haugaard and Reppuci, 73.]

And once again, unless you pre-suppose that all homosexuals were molested as
children, this is a completely irrelevant passage which proves absolutely
nothing.

I'm at a loss here, Mr. Cramer, was this posting supposed to prove anything?
The first part of the posting at least had a point to make and seemed rele-
vant.  This part, however, does not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:32:38 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <BxoyIp.7Hu@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, by kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l):
> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:

I found this debate to be rather amusing until I saw this little ditty...

> Proscribing homosexual activity does not pass any legal, moral,
> or other judgement on any person.  It merely bans an activity.  People are
> more than the sum of their actions, and no person is so limited that 
> proscribing an activity denies their humanity.  I realize that many self-
> labelled "homosexuals" would attempt to define themselves entirely in 
> terms of their sexuality, but that is merely a sign of their mental 
> instability.

Yikes!!!  Are there actually people who believe that banning such
an activity in really no big deal?  Do we allow them to vote?  :-)
What if he had changed one word and said, "Proscribing religious
activity does not pass any legal, moral, or other judgement on any
person."  Heck, they only spend an hour a week in church, right?
I would say that if we banned (oh, that's "proscribed" to you) all
of *your* activities, you would indeed find your humanity affected.
I appreciate the fact that you have not defined yourself entirely
in terms of your sexuality because it would make us heterosexuals
look like neanderthals.

>>Boy I would love to know if you ever
>>have childern- and one of them turns out to be gay and when they go up and
>>accept themselves, someone comes along and says 'You are trash, evil, garbage
>>and don't deserve to live'- then they kill themselves.  Would you be happy???
>>You great society will have done its duty... right?

> The situation you describe would, of course, be reprehensible.  However,
> if society said to my son/daughter "The action you have taken is wrong
> and detrimental to society" I would have no choice but to agree.  I love
> my children, but that love requires me to point out wrong action.

I see.  "My country, right or wrong."  Ja wohl, Herr Commandant!
Shall it be by firing squad or public hanging?  And by the way,
Mr. Lemming, which particular herd of sheep do you follow, anyway?
I hope you come to your senses before "society" requires ignorant
fools to report to the rendering plant...

> My point is that the gay person can no more attack the straight person for
> attempting to outlaw homosexuality than a child molester can attack both
> for outlawing child molestation.

Do we take this to mean that you believe that homosexuality
should be illegal, or that child molestation shouldn't be?
Even the most pathetic homophobes know that homosexuality
"activity" is victimless.  Wake up, get a life, get informed!
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
From: cs65xaq@sdcc8.ucsd.edu (Elvis)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: HAYWARD FAULT????
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:47:19 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

I have a question for anyone out there...I know there are certain
tendancies for earthquakes to occur at certain times.
For instance, when the sun and moon are in sync so they are actually
re-inforcing each others' pull on the earth.
I also know that as far back as history goes, almost without fail
there has been a big quke onthe hayward fault 3 years after a san
andreas (bay area section) quake---any word of that theory being
shot down? October 17th, 1992 came and went and unless I'm TOTALLY
out of it, there's been nothing...Since this is just a set of
observations, it is not guaranteed 2 work every time, of course--
but can anyone tell me the latest about the theories about
earthquakes? Is this theory still valid? Is anyone especialy on
watch for earthquakes because it IS fall of '92? Or is that given
only very little credit?
-----------
I wanted to mention, and forgot to follow up a reply:
To the person who felt the loma prieta quake in L.A.:
I felt the late june- L.A. quake (The day I chose to stay up all
night, That happened at 5ish a.m.!)
and I was in the SF bay area!
So---this is interesting. Anyone who says an earthquake can't move
over 400+ miles is very wrong! :)
bye
-allan c.


Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: San Francisco Earthquake 89
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:05:54 GMT

(Pardon the banality, but...)

My uncle was taking a leak at Candlestick at the infamous time.

He said it was a very interesting experience...

gak
---
Richard Stueven       AHA# 22584 |----------| I thought a lot about the last
Internet:            gak@wrs.com |----GO----| game, and I thought I must beat
ATTMAIL: ...!attmail!gakhaus!gak |---SHARX--| them this time.  I thought I must
Cow Palace:            107/H/3-4 |----------| be like a wall and not let them
                                              score.  - Arturs Irbe
From: andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Higher quake probability in Southern California
Date: 20 Nov 1992 20:57:25 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu


In article <1992Nov20.054846.19181@borland.com> pfussell@borland.com (PaulFussell) writes:
>I'll try again--seems like I'm losing the first 7 or 8 lines of my
>messages. I read in the paper this morning that the Landers quake
>had increased stress on the San Andreas, and that there's a increased
>likelihood that the 8M quake that was supposed to occur in 30 years
>is now likely to occur in 10 years or less. Is anyone familiar with
>the data? What's your opinion?
It's the San Bernadino segment of the San Andreas which was given a 20%
chance in 30 years starting in 1988 of an M7.  At least one of the new
studies says that event could happen 10 years earlier because of Landers.
It does NOT say that it will happen within 10 years.  This is based on
comparing changes in the static stress field on the faults due to Landers
with yearly changes due to plate motions.  A lot of it is moderately
tenuous and the authors have stated that the 10 year earlier part is the
most tenuous and have resisted attempts to have this work result in
changes to the probabilities that are now being revised for southern
California.  So sayeth Ruth Harris who works here and gave a seminar
yesterday on her and Bob Simpson's paper.

Personally I sort of like Richard Stead's argument that without Landers
it would have been 10 years late because Landers just isn't that unusual.
Quite though provoking.

Andy
From: art@acc.com (Art Berggreen)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: San Francisco Earthquake 89
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:12:18 GMT
Organization: ACC, Advanced Computer Communications

>|> Oddly enough, I felt the Loma Prieta earthquake here in L.A.
>|> 

Santa Barabara, CA  (about 300 mi. south)
I was at home reading and looked up with a "did something just happen?".
There was no rattling or other signs until we noticed the 6 in. wave sloshing
back and forth across the pool.  We quickly turned the TV on ...

Art
From: squento@farside.next.com (Steve Quento)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: San Francisco Earthquake 89
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:13:39 GMT

In article <1dsdflINNj1h@male.EBay.Sun.COM> 49ers@eb5ts4.EBay.Sun.COM  
(Renie Maycon) writes:
> I want to know what you were doing when the earthquake hit 
> 
> tell me what you were doing and where were you?

I just left my job in Cupertino to meet a friend at the local bowling ally  
bar, to have a beer and watch the World Series. Now that I look back a  
curious thing happened right before the quake hit. As we were setting at  
the bar (there was only 3 or 4 people in the bar at the time) a Miller  
beer sign just pop right off the wall. There was no one within 10 feet of  
this sign. My friend and I were perplexed. So, we walked over to the sign  
on the floor and re-hung it and forgot about it. We went back to sit at  
the bar, and few minutes later the quake hit. I remember seeing about 75  
glasses going up in the air in unison. That's when I darted for the door  
way. When I got into the door jam, huddle and hugging people I didn't know  
the 2nd wave hit. The whole bowling ally seemed to go up in the air and  
then slam back down on the ground. Needless to say all lanes had a strike.  
Than we run out of the building.The sound was most terrifying.
Finally, when I got home though all the chaos, we only had minimal damage  
at home and everybody was ok. We did sleep in our clothes for a few a  
days.

_Steve
..ride the seismic wave...
   
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
From: pfussell@borland.com (PaulFussell)
Subject: Re: Higher quake probability in Southern California
Originator: pfussell@genghis.borland.com
Organization: Borland International
Distribution: ca.earthquakes
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:48:46 GMT








I'll try again--seems like I'm losing the first 7 or 8 lines of my
messages. I read in the paper this morning that the Landers quake
had increased stress on the San Andreas, and that there's a increased
likelihood that the 8M quake that was supposed to occur in 30 years
is now likely to occur in 10 years or less. Is anyone familiar with
the data? What's your opinion?