HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markst@chips.com (Mark Storkamp)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Your Right it is the (Re: The usual)
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:06:50 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Chips and Technologies, San Jose, CA

In article <1ebgvlINN374@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.180532.5228@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>
>>Tim, you (and others with the same misconceptions) must learn that there is
>>a HUGE difference between hate, phobias, and a strong dislike.
>>
>
>So let's get down to the nitty gritty definitions-
>
>For Example- phobia = A strong fear, adversion or dislike.  Now about you say
>there is a HUGE difference between phobia and strong dislike, there seems to
>be a definitional inconsistency here.

Indeed there is. Would you please cite your reference for these definitions?
Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary (Office Edition) lists the following:

Phobia - A persistent illogical fear.

>Now let's look at the word 'hate', to feel dislike or distaste for. Now if we 
>look at this defintion it seems to imply 'strong dislike', and if we carry it

Hate - To feel animosity or hostility toward:detest.

I see no 'dislike' here. (I personaly dislike a number of things, such as
scratches on my car.  I feel no hatred towards the scratches)

>one more step- and use phobia then it means that you or I have a strong dislike
>for some particular thing, e.g. hydrophobia strong dislike of water.

hydrophobia - 1. Pathological fear of water. 2. Rabies

Please, let us not reinvent the english language to suit our own purposes.
If you re-read Phils post, you will find it quite suitable as it is.

>
>I would suggest that you select your words usages more carefully or clarify your
>usage of words (in context).

He did quite well.  Please let me know how you came up with your definitions.

>>It's not hate, it's not fear, it's not a phobia. It is just dislike.
>>

I'll add another one.
dislike - to regard with disapproval or distaste.

Note - not hate, not fear.

Xref: sparky ba.politics:7186 talk.politics.misc:60560 alt.politics.elections:24022 co.politics:2134 ne.politics:3025 alt.politics.clinton:17341 alt.politics.democrats.d:604
From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:48:15 GMT
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO

In article <BZS.92Nov16224552@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> > Greg Woods
>>I think it's just as valid to say that if the government weren't removing
>>such a large chunk of our incomes (47%) ahead of time, by use of force,
>>then we'd have more money to contribute to private charities
>
>[only] about $100B of the $1.5T
>goes to direct aid to the poor. 

All this shows is that many more cuts in government spending (and taxes)
would be necessary to have a major effect. I grant this. We could start
by letting our Defense Department be for defense instead of always
playing World Police and defending other countries at American
taxpayers' expense. There are also many other government services
that could be completely privatized. We could also try paying off
some of the ridiculous defecit, but that too will require cuts in
government spending, not likely to happen with the Liberals in power.

--Greg
From: brian@igc.apc.org (Brian J. Coan)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Environmental Issues in Nicaragua
Date: 21 Nov 92 03:25:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1325600022:000:1393
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!brian    Nov 20 19:25:00 1992




			2 SPEAKERS FROM NICARAGUA
		TALK ON ENVIRONMENTAL & POLITICAL ISSUES
			    IN THEIR COUNTRY


Luis Kuan, Mayor of El Cua, Jinotega province, and Juan Morales,
Agronomist and expert in Rainforest Restoration will speak on
environmentally safe, renewable energy sources for rural Nicaragua.
They have been involved in the successful construction of a micro
hydroelectric generation system that now powers the rural town
of El Cua, previously without any electrical power. (This is the
project U.S. engineer Ben Linder was working on when he was slain
by the contras).  They will also be speaking about the current
political and economic situation in Nicaragua today.

The event will take place on Monday, November 23rd, 7:30 PM, at
the 1st Baptist Church of Palo Alto, 305 North California Street,
(corner of California and Bryant), in Palo Alto.  The event is
FREE and open to the public.

The event is sponsored by the Committee Against U.S. Intervention
in Central America [CAUSICA] and the 1st Baptist Churct. For more
information contact Brian Coan at (415) 322-9069.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian J. Coan
Institute for Global Communications:	415-442-0220
Community Data Processing (CdP): 	415-322-9069
Internet: brian@igc.apc.org		UUCP: uunet!cdp!brian
Bitnet: brian%igc.org@stanford		DASNet: [DE3MIR]brian
FidoNet: Brian J Coan @ 1:204/4
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7337 ca.politics:9810
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: More and More of the Usual Re: The usual
Date: 23 Nov 92 04:44:33 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Nov23.000920.4224@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1empmjINNe68@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
>    >
>    >I would suggest that you do a little bit of historical
>    >analysis of world affairs and histories.
>
>I have done this a lot more than you have. And we know the answers. When
>you let a majority dispense with absolute morality, why then, you can
>get enough Germans to agree to murder most of the Jews.
>

For all you know I might have a degree in World History.

>Or Americans to keep and own slaves.
>
>And so on.
>
>
>Are you REALLY this stupid? Freedom of Association exists ONLY when the
>intercourse between two or more people is voluntary, involves their own
>property only, and is not coerced.
>
>Being slave is coercion.
>

Now here is the part I knew would come- 'Are you REALLY this stupid?'
You see Phil, people don't want to discuss anything with you because
from these types of statements it is apparent that you lack any type
of intercommunicational skills.

Your version of FOA might be fine in a ideal world. But let's take a 
furthur look- let us say that the person whom is my slave wants to be.
They are owned by me, must obey me completely, work for me doing what
I want, and it is openly known to everyone that this person or persons
is or are my slaves.  Now the US government steps in and says no, you
cannot have them as slaves. Is this coercion? 

FOA might be wonderful in concept- but like Marx it has many great
shortcomings and lack of insights that leads to it's down fall.

>    >You must be very insecure that you cannot simply accept
>    >others for who and what they want to be, or what they are.
>
>You must have very diffused and incoherent values to not do so.
>
>

Why would I have diffused and incoherent values by not accepting people
for who and what they are? You speak a lot of not making absolute 
judgement calls and yet you seem to advocate that is what we need to
do.  Isn't FOA a form of this?  Do you base FOA upon knowledge or
reactional bias?

I am sorry but without acceptance we have little hope for bringing
about cooperation in the world- rather we will or they will have to
be eliminated, or I guess will just ignore them.  And I am not sure
how we will ignore them or us, when weapons and propoganda are aimed
down each others throat.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7290 ca.politics:9754
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: The usual
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:33:19 GMT
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.

In article <1992Nov19.174512.139@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In short, most hetereosexuals do not like homosexuals. Period. And they
>don't like them for what they ARE, not some set of myths about what they
>ain't. Got it?
>
>PEOPLE DON'T LIKE YOU!
>
>If someone says, "you are a homosexual, I don't like homosexuals, I won't
>deal with you", what's your problem? Is your self esteem so low that you
>must seek COERCIVE LAWS to "FORCE" people to deal with you?

The next time I talk to any black acquaintances I know who are fired from
their job because they are black or not allowed to rent in a neighborhood
because they are black, I will apply the Ronzone Philosphy and tell them
if only their self-esteem were OK they wouldn't have a need to be bothered;
it's just that some people don't like them, for whatever reason, and they
should just get used to it and not try to rock the boat and change anything.

jb
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Election '92
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:54:24 GMT

In article <5630@gold.gvg.tek.com> mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:
    >In case you hadn't noticed, white males decide most of what
    >happens in this country. Been that way for a long time. And
    >the older they get, the more powerful they get. No studies
    >needed here, just buckets and buckets of empirical evidence.
    >Now, does this sound like an equitable way to run a society?
    >I submit that it is not.

Now let's see.

Willi Brown is the most important and influential politician in California.
He's black.

Clarence Thomas is on the USC. He's black.

Vernon Jordan is the key to Clinton's cabinet. He's black.

Bill Cosby is talking about owning NBC. Along with Michael Jackson
and Eddie Murphy they, three black males, earned almost 20% of
entertainment's profits last year.

We have black mayors now in NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, LA, ...

Yep, sure, right, us white males, we own and control everything.
Don't need no studies, don't need no facts, don't need to look at a
paper for 10 minutes. Just gotta have your pet paranoid fantasies ...




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7241 ca.politics:9664
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: The usual
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:31:02 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <1992Nov18.221925.24979@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>Who said anything about rights? Rights are not the issue. Like and
>dislike is the issue.

No, truth and lies are the issue.  You and Clayton continue to make
claims and implications regarding the behavior of homosexuals that are
not justified (and sometimes contradicted) by the "statistics" that
Clayton presents.  You are, of course, free to feel however you wish
about homosexuals, and I don't think anyone has any real hope of
changing your mind.

You are also free to post, print, and speak whatever anti-gay
propaganda you feel like.  Don't be surprised if people take care to
point out that it is propaganda, with all the characteristics of such
(truth out of context, little lies, big lies, bad statistics,
repetition of unverified claims, misleading analogies, exaggeration of
all evils, minimization of all virtues.  And, of course, we cannot
forget the ad hominem attack).

Note that it is all the more important that propaganda like yours and
Clayton's be identified in a world where everyone is legally free to
discriminate.

David Chase
Sun
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7235 ca.politics:9659
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Your Right it is the (Re: The usual)
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:14:58 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1ebgvlINN374@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
    >>Tim, you (and others with the same misconceptions) must learn
    >>that there is a HUGE difference between hate, phobias, and a
    >>strong dislike.
    >>
    >>
    >So let's get down to the nitty gritty definitions-
    >
    >For Example- phobia = A strong fear, adversion or dislike.
    >Now about you say there is a HUGE difference between phobia
    >and strong dislike, there seems to be a definitional
    >inconsistency here.
    >
    >Now let's look at the word 'hate', to feel dislike or
    >distaste for. Now if we look at this defintion it seems to
    >imply 'strong dislike', and if we carry it one more step- and
    >use phobia then it means that you or I have a strong dislike
    >for some particular thing, e.g. hydrophobia strong dislike of
    >water.
    >
    >I would suggest that you select your words usages more
    >carefully or clarify your usage of words (in context).

I would suggest in turn that you use accepted definitions from
dictionaries, especially, in this case, medical dictionaries.

A phobia is a "lasting, abnormal or irrational fear of ...".

While you are free to use words per any arbitrary definition, the above
example of ad-hoc definition twisting marks you as intellectually
dishonest -- at best.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Don't blame me, I voted....
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:23:46 GMT
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.

In article <92323.31038.J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
+Reprinted from Letters To The Editor (paper not known)

+  When... [ the usual post-election whining ]... don't blame me - 
+  I voted Republican.
+  When the schools teach African History and Indian History, but not American
                                              ^^^^^^              ^^^^^^^^^^^^
+  History, don't blame me - I voted Republican.

Unless this letter-writer was referring to the "Indians" from India,
the above statement is particularly telling.

jb
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: At last, we're almost there!
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:39:31 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <102608@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <13249@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
    >>I would STRONGLY object to laws that prohibited
    >>discrimination against sushi eaters. [...] My rule is very
    >>simple: hands off. [...] If you want the freedom to have sex
    >>YOUR way, then you better be ready to let other adults have
    >>freedom to run their business THEIR way.
    >>
    >Clayton is totally right here.
    >
    >It is unfortunate, however, that his reasons for avoiding gay
    >people are totally groundless.
    >
    >But if he wants to deceive himself, that's his business.

Oh so close!!!!

This is the BIG point. Where I believe you still are "off the mark" is
on the subjective nature "reasons .. for avoiding".

In the pursuit of happiness, subjectivity IS the priority.

I don't like lima beans. Are my reasons groundless? After all, the stores
stock and sell lima be beans so certainly SOME people out there like
them. They aren't poisonous.

I just can't stand them.

There is a HUGE gulf between "no overt rational reason" for disliking
homosexuals, and the "unfortunately ... groundless" remark.

Consider, say, tatoos. Some people like them, and some don't. There are
some objective rational reasons for tatoos being irrational (the slight
pain and infection risk if getting them, foreign matter (ink) under the
skin, and so on), BUT, would YOU say that either liking or not liking
people with tatoos is groundless?

In fact, there are more reasons for being "anti" homosexuality than not.

But, we, us, all of us, have the highest right to pursue happiness.

The ONLY reason we have a government is to secure this right.

The State serves us, not the other way around.

So if you or I pursue happiness by avoding contact with red-headed dwarfes
OR homosexuals OR ..., then fine, so be it.

It's not groundless, it's not fear, hate, or a phobia -- it's the way we
all like and dislike different things.

Don't force (attempt to) me to "like/accept" things/people I don't want to,
and I won't do the same to you.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7164 talk.politics.misc:60439 alt.politics.elections:23950 co.politics:2084 alt.politics.clinton:17276 alt.politics.democrats.d:583
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: More and More of the Usual Re: The usual
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:09:20 GMT

In article <1empmjINNe68@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
    >So you are narrowed minded by saying that I am not allowed to
    >try and create legislation to protect people from other
    >people? If the majority of people are convinced that a civil
    >rights law is needed, then what should happen?
    >
    >I would suggest that you do a little bit of historical
    >analysis of world affairs and histories.

I have done this a lot more than you have. And we know the answers. When
you let a majority dispense with absolute morality, why then, you can
get enough Germans to agree to murder most of the Jews.

Or Americans to keep and own slaves.

And so on.

    >>But some facists just have to have coercive laws aimed at
    >>things they don't like.
    >>
    >Get off trying to label everything as 'facist', you seem to
    >be somewhat obsessed.
    >
    >Do we have laws that require you to have gays, blacks,
    >asians, etc. come and visit your home or enter your home
    >without your permission? I don't think so. But if a business
    >goes into the 'public sector' then they take on certain types
    >of social values and conducts that are required or at least
    >desired for a society to function well.
    >
    >Let's go one step furthur- we have a Bill of Rights that
    >guarantees many rights that we take for granted. But isn't
    >that a little coercive? Let's take the XIII Amendment that
    >forbids slavery, but I have decided that I want slaves... and
    >now I can't and according to section 2 Congress can enforce
    >this ruling upon me. So where do we draw the lines on what is
    >coercive and what is not?

Are you REALLY this stupid? Freedom of Association exists ONLY when the
intercourse between two or more people is voluntary, involves their own
property only, and is not coerced.

Being slave is coercion.

    >>And then they wonder why they in turn are hit with laws
    >>against their favorite whatevers.
    >>
    >I assume you are talking about laws such as sodomy etc....
    >These laws came into being long before any gay or straight
    >persons started to complain about them as a violation of
    >personal freedom. You are putting the chicken before the egg,
    >of course I am only trying to surmise what your statement
    >above means- actually like a lot of the statements you make.

No, I'm talking about Colorado.

    >You must be very insecure that you cannot simply accept
    >others for who and what they want to be, or what they are.

You must have very diffused and incoherent values to not do so.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:06:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.015824.991@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>Hope you don't mind if I jump in. I think the key word is "supposed" to
>care. If we were helping each other in our hour of need then the private
>charities wouldn't be in such distress.

I think it's just as valid to say that if the government weren't removing
such a large chunk of our incomes (47%) ahead of time, by use of force,
then we'd have more money to contribute to private charities, and the
private charities wouldn't be in such distress. I bet the private charities
would do a better job of helping the needy than the government is doing
with our money, too.

>But all you have to do is drive down a California freeway
>to know that people don't really care what condition their fellow man
>is in. Sad, but true. 

How do you figure that? That's an amazing insight for you to be able to
tell what is going on inside every person's head just by watching them
drive down a freeway!

--Greg
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:41:33 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <5601@gold.gvg.tek.com> mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:
    >One of his articles equated murdering babies with homosexual
    >sex. And another went through his tiresome rant about "if you
    >aren't sending all of your earnings, except for that which
    >will keep you alive, to Somalia you have no right to complain
    >about this country's safety net."

As MPA also asks in the same post, "Will it ever end?".

No, I don't think that MPA's nearly complete inability to comprehend basic
English will ever end.

For the most part, it is useful to ignore MPA posts -- they are devoid of
intellectual content.

However, I in no way equated the two.

I discussed the DIFFERENCE between anti-semitism, which is based on
canards (such as Jews murder Christian babies for Yom Kippur), and
dislike of homosexuals for the factual basis of disliking what homosexuals
do.

I can't use words of less than one syllable for MPA, but I'll try to keep
it at his level of comprehension.

1. Anti-semitism is based on lies. To dislike Jews because of the
   anti-semitic incorrect propaganda is irrational.

2. Dislike of homosexuals is based on reality -- most people do not like
   what homosexuals do (and are).

The image of Jews murdering babies for religious (or any other) purpose
is a horrible image, and one that most people find monstrous. Thankfully,
it is not true.

The image of a bathhouse, where men have anonymous sex with other men,
often dozens per night, and sexual envelopes are pushed (fisting et al)
is a disgusting image to most people. Unfortunately, it is true that
these things happen.

As usual, MPA is having his difficulty distinguishing between fiction
and reality.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.jobs.misc