HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: JFH and Fred's Ridiculous Flaming
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:12:38 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep9.163035.12604@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>I think you better go back through all that old netnews you say you
>save and take a look at just who threw the first rocks at who, John.
>I recall quite a few accusations from your direction, so you seem to
>be the one with the personal crusade.  I simply respond in kind
>because it's what little immature children like you seem to need.

Our first exchange involved your claiming intellectual superiority
on the issue of school vouchers and how economics works.  You decided
that since you have a degree in economics, that you know more than I
do and that you could act condescending and belittling.  I posted
references from several texts (including my favorite on economics,
"Economics in Plain English"), as well as refering to postings by
Curt Finch and others.  You then started writing about how much of a
pompous ass I was for disagreeing with you and how all of those
sources were wrong, wrong, wrong.

You have yet to demonstrate any grasp of "Economies of Scale" and
"Incremental Costs".
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: iraq vanquished
Date: 5 Sep 92 16:41:52 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Sep1.211153.7318@tamsun.tamu.edu>, wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:
> Scientists predicted all kinds of other disasters. Marine life in the
> Persian Gulf has suffered absolutely incredible damage. Agriculture
> east of the Gulf is already suffering, and it will continue to suffer,
> possibly for months or years to come.
 
Actually, I just read a report that in many parts of the Gulf they have
the lowest levels of pollution in years, due to the reduced tanker
traffic.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Ab
Date: 6 Sep 1992 05:52:19 GMT
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

> In <7233@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Aug31.174814.26236@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> moller@netmail.a
> >>In article <exuptr.410.714853664@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (
> >>|>> BTW, did you know suicide is illegal in Texas?
> >>This, and similar statutes in other states, are as asinine as the bill [...
> 
> >Actually, this one serves a purpose: it gives the legal system a way to forc
> >a suicidal person to get psychiatric help. I agree that someone who has
> >successufully committed suicide is beyond the reach of the legal system...bu
> >someone who does so unsuccessfully needs help, and will get it.
> 
> It hardly seems that it is necessary to CRIMINALIZE this in order to
> make sure that someone gets help.  After all, isn't the state allowed
> to determine that someone is a danger to themself or others and put
> them into treatment that way?
> 
> Just out of curiousity, what do these kinds of stupid laws mandate in
> the way of sentencing?

The real reason there is a law against suicide in Texas is that 
under the current law, both abetting a crime and the atttempt of a 
crime are based on law that prohibits the act. Therefore, if there 
were no law against suicide, there would be no law against 
abetting or attempting suicide, unless it was codified as separate 
acts. It was just easier to make the law against suicide and let 
that cover everything.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Exculpatory, a nifty little word that meant confuse
           the hell out of the jurors. -- Stephen Coonts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5173 alt.politics.clinton:5152
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 22:14:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <18qfonINNstu@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
|> 3. Would you please post an essay on "Market Forces and Goods with
|> Extremely Inelastic Demand"?

It's not as inelastic as some people like to pretend.  There are many
unnecessary procedures that people submit to either because of
ignorance or the fact that they have health insurance.  Doctors need
customers just like any other service industry.  If they didn't get
any customers they would lower their rates.

|> We may not be able to afford lots of people
|> priced out of the medical care market. Tax money to pick up all those
|> carcasses.

Lots of people are priced out of the medical care market right now.  I
haven't yet found it necessary to step over any dead carcasses.

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Insurance cards
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 23:05:02 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <86e3qB1w165w@rivdell.sccsi.com>, popec@rivdell.sccsi.com (PopeC) writes:
|> Yeah, there have been people selling blank or fake proof of insurance 
|> cards in Texas.  It is illegal and a number of people have indeed been 
|> popped for it.

Is it illegal to sell such a card, or is it illegal to use such a card
in order to get a driver's license or a vehicle registration?  I
suspect the latter.

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics,rice.galor
Subject: Re: Bible, Homosexuality, Translations, etc.
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:43:34 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <C2QBr*ZV0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>You are deliberately lying when you claim 

>You already know 

Jim, when will you quit telling other people what they know and how
they delude and lie to themselves simply because they don't agree with
you?  Has it ever occurred to you that someone who is studying
theology might know just a bit more than an unemployed defense worker
about these things?


-- 
"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: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 15 Sep 1992 19:41:52 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <21528@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> 
> In article <00716430161@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
> >The way I see it, if a person is willing to work hard and work long, that
> >person should be rewarded for that work with reasonable health care and
> >an adequate diet for that person and her children.
> 
> I believe that, if a person is willing to work hard and work long, that
> person should be rewarded with a new 486/50 DX with a 330MB SCSI, 64MB
> RAM, SVGA monitor and an Exabyte 2.3GB 8mm tape drive.
> 
> Oh.  Health care is a "right".  I keep forgetting that basic liberal
> assumption.  Now, why isn't it that a nice computer isn't a "right"?
> I keep forgetting.
> -- 
> John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
> Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
> UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
> Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
> 
> 

Come on John,

You are not going to die if you don't get a computer. You're not going to
be permanently damaged without a CPU of your very own. Furthermore, you
can CHOOSE to own a computer or not without consequences. Try again.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics,rice.galor
Subject: Re: Bible, Homosexuality, Translations, etc.
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1992 08:24:06 GMT
 <G-cBr*sV0@caleb.UUCP> <16854BDD.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> <C2QBr*ZV0@caleb.UUCP>
 <1992Sep4.184334.9157@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Sep4.184334.9157@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

> In <C2QBr*ZV0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> 
> >You are deliberately lying when you claim 
> 
> >You already know 
> 
> Jim, when will you quit telling other people what they know and how
> they delude and lie to themselves simply because they don't agree with
> you?  Has it ever occurred to you that someone who is studying
> theology might know just a bit more than an unemployed defense worker
> about these things?

There are many folks "studying theology" who know very little about what the
Bible says.  He knew enough to try to discredit the major portions that he
disagreed with.  His postings reveal that he knows that he is deliberately
perverting the Bible.

You really ought to buy a clue somewhere Fred.  You don't have to be an "expert"
to recognize that an "expert" is wrong.  I don't claim to be an expert on the
Bible.  I have read it almost every day for over 20 years, so I do know something
about it.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: dboyes@is.rice.edu (David E Boyes)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 5 Sep 92 22:12:37 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Sep3.212525.14670@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>In <BtyMLn.HtH@rice.edu> dboyes@is.rice.edu (David E Boyes) writes:
>>The line that most of the concerned doctors I know draw is this:
>>If the fetus is incapable of surviving independently of the mother *without*
>>mechanical assistance or significant medical procedures, it is not yet human.

>Hmmm, I'm not sure just how 'reasonable' you might want to say this
>is.  By this measure, my oldest sister wasn't 'human'.  Now, I admit
>to having my doubts upon occasion as we were growing up, but I think
>that medically she probably should be considered to have been a person
>at birth.

That's why I specifically said "fetus". A fetus that survives to
term is capable of surviving independently of the mother, and no
longer falls under the criterion I quoted earlier -- once it's
born, it's no longer a fetus.

>If you want to draw this kind of line, I think where you need to draw
>it is between 'normal' and 'heroic' procedures.

"significant medical procedures" and "mechanical assistance"
generally imply heroic measures in my mind. My apologies that I
wasn't clear.

>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for

-- 
David Boyes
dboyes@rice.edu
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5263 alt.politics.clinton:5544
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: KILL THE RICH!
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:34:47 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <LNg5qB1w165w@cnbisis.lerctr.org> cnb@cnbisis.lerctr.org (Nelson Baird) writes:
>john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

>> In article <1992Sep6.123643.12285@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.aus
>> |> Taxing the rich won't really get much.  There aren't enough of them.
>> |> Most of the money in this country is in the hands of the middle class.
>> |> Uncle Sam wants YOU.  Not the rich guy.  He is the rich guy.
>> Exactly.  So why is Clinton trying to raise taxes on the rich?  Solely
>> to buy votes from the middle class.  It has nothing to do with the
>> deficit or the economy.
>> 
>   You might want to check terms.  During the last congressional battle 
>over taxation, the statistical definition of "rich" was anyone making in 
>excess of 40K for a family of four.   

Oh, shit.  So if $40k is "rich", what is middle class?  $15k?  Remember
$40k is two income producing parents making $10/hr.  Does that sound like
rich?

>Consider that the "poor" of the US look incredibly rich to the poor of 
>the third world.  I am reminded of a protest in New York where the 
>"poor" protested the size of their government support by parking their 
>cars on the freeways one morning.   In the third world anyone who has 
>a car IS rich. 

Good point.

>The problem is we have created a system where there is an increasing 
>dis-incentive to producing more or better.  The more productive I am, 
>the greater the fraction of MY reward I am required to hand to a system
>that clearly fails to do it's job. 

I don't know if we can say it FAILS.  It is not very efficient, though.  And 
I can think of "better" places for my money to go.

---------------------------------------------

I want to start a poll/discussion about this:

If the IRS said to you "MR ____, this year you owe $ X in taxes, but we're
going to let you spend it on anything you want, so long as the things you 
spend it on are either recognized charities, public works, or national 
(government) agencies."

What would you spend your cash on?  Realize you have the possibility of 
choosing only one thing if you want, since you're not spending everyone's 
tax money, only your own.  Assume that loopholes of self-indulgence are 
closed - this is an intellectual question, not a con game ;-)


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:17:36 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <3308.91.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us> david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) writes:
>   Isn't it just as hypocritical(note the spelling for future reference!)
>    for you to withhold references, since you
>   are the one who keeps insisting on them? You have said before (time and
>   again) that you ALWAYS provide references. So far you have failed to do
>   so in regards to the matter of abortion survivors who are smothered in
>   rags. I, for one, would be fascinated to see how you are going to slide
>   out of this one... The shoe's on the other foot now John! Are you gonna
>   provide references or not? (I wonder if YOU are squirming now?)

Yes and no.  If a person is being beaten with a big stick, and has complained
for years about being beaten with a big stick and how beating people with
big sticks is wrong, it is not hipicritical for that same person to decide to
defend himself with a big stick.

Giving in to Fred and producing references has never resulted in Fred giving
any support for his arguments.  However, in a posting earlier today I did
some info from an earlier study.  So, once again I've given in.  Fred will
not change his ways, however, and he will once again squirm away without
having proven a word he writes.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5171 alt.politics.clinton:5145
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 13 Sep 92 02:34:07 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep12.041559.13290@wri.com> walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh) writes:
>And this ratio is not very meaningful.  Income tax is just
>one way the government hits people's wallets, and it's virtually
>the only revenue component that has any progressivity at all.
>Incidentally, a good way to reduce this ratio would be to
>narrow the disparity in income levels.

The resulting system would not be free-market capitalism.  We
saw what narrowing "the disparity in income levels" does - it
causes the collapse of the country.  This is what happened in
the USSR.  People didn't want to work because working more
wouldn't result in earning more.  If I made the same amount
whether I worked like a slave or whether I screwed off, I'd
screw off.

>Let's talk about a young married couple earning a
>combined $25,000 per year.  They pay 16% of their gross income in
>federal income and FICA, and this doesn't even count the employer's
>equal FICA contribution, which directly impacts their earning
>potential.  They do not get any social security or welfare benefits.

Sure, now let's talk about the $5K that they receive, on average,
in benefits from the Federal government.  Let's see, .16 x 25000
is about 4000, minus 5000 leaves them getting $1,000 that they
don't deserve.  Sounds like they aren't paying their fair-share.

>Now how much more do they need to pay to cover their fair share?

At least as much as they get?

>As for the truly destitute, who are hardly paying taxes at all,
>what can we reasonably expect?  Blood from a stone?

Them to pay for as much as they receive?
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: JFH and Fred's Ridiculous Flaming
Date: 5 Sep 92 17:32:48 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <21464@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.154312.28167@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:

>>Do you think you could both be good boys and take this conversation to
>>e-mail?  I suspect I speak for many people when I say: I'M TIRED OF
>>IT.

>That's nice.  Now perhaps you can answer a question I've been trying to
>figure out for weeks.  If two Aggies get divorced, does this mean they
>are no longer brother and sister?

Quite a retort there John. Since the answer to my question is no (or
so I presume... you didn't answer it), I find myself with only one
alternative. Yes, John, you are the second person to ever be placed in
my kill files. I relish the idea of not seeing your reply to this
message.
-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
# I am sane. I am perfectly and completely sane. I shouldn't be in here     #
# at all. There's been a terrible mistake.                                  #
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:08:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep09.230926.25617@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.191704.18166@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> 
>|> Do you think American doctors are "better trained" than doctors from
>|> Germany, Japan, England, Canada, France, etc.?  They make more than
>|> all of them, and by quite a margin.  Now then, what is the reason for
>|> that again?
>
>Because these countries all have socialized medicine, which guarantees
>mediocrity.  The "cream of the crop" doctors all want to come to the
>United States because they can make a hell of a lot more money here. 
>Canadians are crossing the US border in droves so that they can get
>medical treatment without waiting in line for 6 months.  Socialism
>doesn't work.  That has been proven time and time again.
>

I dare wager that a faw fewer percentage of Canadians have to
wait in health care lines in clinics and emergency rooms and 
a far greater percentage of Canadians have greater doctor choice
than Americans, if you include the uninsured and the underinsured
in the American numbers. 

The so-called private American system is as socialized as any in
the world...except it is a caste socialism, with immense subsidization
of health care for particular elite classes, and hardly any for others.

Canadians are not crossing the border in droves to receive care,
and although there are occassionally delays for elective surgery,
polls always show Canadians are among the most satisfied people
in the world with our health care system.  The Canadian middle
class may look enviously at the way the American upper middle
class lives, but they tend not to see what their American
peers have to worry about.

Gerald
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics