HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Coercion
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 19:14:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.001448.18014@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
    >It is probably stupid of me to respond to this post, but I
    >feel sorry for Mr. Ronzone, caught as he is in his tangled
    >and tortured web of Randian semantic confusion. My heart goes
    >out to him.
    >
    >In article <1992Oct7.150621.22776@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>Recently, a very stupid post asserted that coercion happens
    >>in every interaction between people where a choice is made.
    >>No, the poster didn't use that language, but that was the
    >>implication of his "thoughts". He claimed that his wife
    >>coerces him all the time, apparently under the impression
    >>that his decision making with regards to his wife was
    >>coercion.
    >>
    >Sometimes we coerce each other to do things, yes. Usually we
    >dont.
    >
    >>Coercion is the use of force to influence a person.
    >>
    >No. To coerce is to *compel* someone to do something. It does
    >not have to be violent. If I or my wife were violent to each
    >other that would be an entirely new ballgame.

Coerce - to compel by force or threats of force.

Now, if you want to use the word coerce is some weird new way. Go ahead.
Love is hate, war is peace and all that shit.

But the above is the convential definition.


    >>Coercion is not trade, nor is it voluntary, mutually desired
    >>(note the word mutual) transaction(s).
    >>
    >Wrong again. VIOLENCE is not trade, nor is it voluntary nor
    >mutually desirable. But you cannot equate coercion to
    >violence. Actually, violence is an indication that coercion
    >has failed. Coercion is usually a strong variant of
    >persuasion. It can become violent, I admit, but this is not
    >the rule in our society. Violence is violence, and that is
    >what is a violation of someone else, not coercion.

It means nothing else.

In order for us to communicate, we must agree on the meaning of words.

You chosse to not use the common definition of coercion, and have chosen
to laden it with menaing thta are not commonly accepted.

Sorry -- we must communicate in English.

I normally use the MW9 (because it is on CD ROM), but the drive is not
attached right now. The Oxford American Dictionary defines coercion as
"to compel by threats or force".

That is also acceptable.


Since I assume that you and your wife do not run your marriage with threats
or force, your wife does not coerce you.



It seems you idea of semantic rescue involves a destination of a bed of
quicksand.





-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5974 ca.politics:8556
From: manley@optilink.UUCP (BIIIIFff!!!1)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: GE)RGE KAN"T K)ME )UT 2 PLAY (WAS:) Re: Biff)
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:08:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

HE HAZX 2 STUDY 4 2 TALK W?BILL CLINTAWN NAD R)SS PUR)T.
EY GUESE HE WOZN"T PAYING ATTENSHUN 4 TEH LAST 12 YIR"S EN )FFICE.


In article <1992Oct8.064953.24969@pb2esac.uucp> jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:
>In article <12633@optilink.UUCP> manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
>>     incuring 
>      ^^^^^^^^
>
>W0WWZER!%$#! DAVE DUUUUUUDE#$!! HOWKuHl UV EWE&*#..2 GIV YUR 
>DEEEEEEEEEEE(praved) ODD-E-ENSE ONE POOR-TICK-EWELARAY *FINE* (thz+ 
>WRETCHRO-MACHINISTICKKKKKK) EGGS-HAMPEL!!! %!THEEZ KAHN OnLy BEA KUNSTROOD 
>AS KLVHUR CYMBALIZMM und WEE ZILOOD YOO 4!IT%^!!  IN A*D*I*S*H*U*N*, 
>&%DLJW JDSSK-- 4 *$## (E HXX GREMPPUM!#== == . 
>
>     k     l        ][    BUFSIZ
>.[
>    &12
>                                                       o)
>
>BIPHUE

224zI LYKE WHY U TALK DUUUUUDE11!! KEN U SEND SUM M-RE 2 HELP ME LARN BEETTUR???!  

															I D)N"T N)W ENNYTHIN ABUT)	 """"{KLVHUR CYMBALS" I U"SE ZILDJIANS!  HOWE DU TH)UGSH KLVHRU 1"S S)UND?

232z*P>S> I CZECHED DAVE"S @ K)PY )V BIIIF"S 9TH( NU K)LLLLEEGIT DICKSHYUNERY.
     <UGHHVEILIBLE @ FINER B))KST)ZS EVRYWERE....}
     NAD U NO WHAT">? "INCURING"S IS EN THER!

--
---
I"MNOTBIIIIIF!

Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:59:37 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Oct9.162603.4145@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <98046@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>In article <1992Oct8.211349.19801@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
>>(Phil Ronzone) writes:

BDK:
>>>>Shall I be explicit? Notice I said "individually-owned".
>>>>Humans are perfectly capable of eating and living communally.

>>>Not me.

>>Well, then don't become a Shaker. (It may be too late,
>>anyhow!) :-)

>Exactly! Point, set, and match. The Shakers are gone now, Dead. Dodo time.
>Wrong philosophy! Bzzzzt! Wrong answer.

No. The Shakers didn't die out because of their beliefs in communal
property. To my knowledge they never had any problems with any members
in that regard.

They expired because of their quaint requirement that the women should
try to remain celibate. You don't get many further generations out of
completely chaste women.

>While another group of strong-religious mindset, that believe very very
>strongly in private property, the Amish, thrive.

I would say a part of their success is the "sense of community", wouldn't
you?

>People that live under communism (the correct name for your idea)
>generally have to be forcibly kept from running away from it.

Yet the Shakers never ran a totalitarian religion to my knowledge.

>You see, they like to survive ...

They can. It all depends on how they define their freedoms and obligations.
>
>
>
>-- 
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>
>If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
>Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
>Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
>Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.
>
>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)
Subject: Phil and extremism (was: Rats I'm a Nazi)
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 06:34:31 GMT

*Sigh*, and here I was thinking another posting on this (tired) thread
would not be necessary.  Silly me.

In article <1992Oct5.163203.19434@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

  [ in response to my accusing him of only viewing "coercion" in extremes ]

>Exactly wacked -- you yourself have taken several absolute positions
>in this very post.
>
>Or, do YOU AGREE that is is sometimes O.K. to teach children that
>the world is flat? You said it is immoral. Period.
>
>That's pretty absolute and black and white.
>
>Well?

Good grief, man - you can't tell the difference between taking an
"absolutist" position on the Earth being flat and an absolutist
position on "coercion is always wrong"???  

That the Earth is not flat can be scientifically demonstrated.  Period.

We obviously disagree on what areas an "extreme" stand should be taken,
and where one should not.  And I notice now in other threads that I am
not the only one to conclude that your knack for viewing lots of
different issues in extreme terms damages your credibility in presenting
your case.

I don't know if this is a trend or what - Cramer became not worth
posting to long ago; you seem to be intent on following in his footsteps
via your name-calling, bluntly arrogant putdowns, and extreme interpretations
of others' arguments.

Or maybe I'm off base here - netters, how about it?

jb
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 3 of 4
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:14:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.203656.16@pb2esac.uucp> rgrodr1@pb2esac.uucp (Robert Rodriguez) writes:
    >Your signature implies that without the White Loathsome
    >Oppressors our society would still be in the stone age. You
    >obviously are not aware that the Mayans invented the
    >calendar, and advanced agricultural techniques, and that a
    >black man performed the first successful open heart surgery
    >(among zillions of other things that were not done by white
    >men). In one sentence you managed to say that everyone should
    >be THANKFUL the White Loathsome Oppressors invented all this
    >wonderful things lest we (the non-whites) be running around
    >using leaves for tampons. Pure B.S.

Yes -- shame on you for not being thankful. But, since you are not a
woman, I guess you just don't know how important a tampon is.


    >>Oh, and don't forget some of the other barbaric things the
    >>Loathsome Oppressors did to the various aborigines in the
    >>world, like ending slavery and the tretament of women as
    >>property somewhere below the status of dogs.
    >>
    >>
    >Oh, now that's a good one! We should thank the WLOs for
    >stopping slavery. That's like thanking Hitler for stopping
    >the Holocaust.

At the peak of the slave trade, there were almost 50 ships porting slaves.
Maybe a few thousand mostly white men. The slaves were acquired from
BLACKS, who were the first step in "getting" slaves. History accounts
for large section of the west African coast being made prosperous by
the slave trade. Propersing blacks, enslaving other blacks.

And please note -- it was dead white males that outlawed slavery,
with the non-white cultures giving up slavery LAST.

    >>Damn us L.O.s' we just don't tolerate some of those "unique"
    >>indigenous cultural aspects very well now, do we?
    >>
    >You don't tolerate much of anything that is different, which
    >is your whole problem.

Yeah, I dislike distortions, PC, and socialism/fascism/communism.
Little ol' intolerant me ...



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: Rats, I guess I'm a Nazi
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 21:41:48 GMT


Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:50:52 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics,ca.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct7.013340.27276@ntmtv>, jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia
Jazanoski) wrote:
> 
> In article <athos-041092160825@kip2-43.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
> >
> >The US Constitution says that (1) you can't force me pray and (2) you can't
> >stop me from praying.  That's all Bruce is saying.  Boxer, on the other
> >hand, is saying that you CAN stop someone from praying.  That's against the
> >first amendment, unless you have another explanation?
> >
> 
> Could you please elaborate on the "you CAN stop someone from praying"?
> (i.e. give examples) Prayer seems like a pretty personal issue to me, 
> so why does Bruce need to get involved in someone's private thoughts? 
> Can't students take a moment of silence before eating lunch or during 
> quiet "work" periods? 

The question is, why can't I pray if I am validictorian?  Why can't I pray
before school starts?  What is so damaging about prayer?  In Upstate New
York, we had a "moment of silence" in homeroom.  Is this unconstitutional? 
No.  A *mandatory* prayer, however, is.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Harvard, Berkeley, and ethical depravity
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:11:51 GMT

There are times when you an item in the paper, and discusses an
event in calm and accepting tones -- as if the event was just
another news item. Yet the item is so disgusting that you truly
wonder what kind of horrid moron has taken over the job of editing
the paper.

I guess more than anything else it was the "business as usual"
flavor of two recent stories.


Berkeley law school (Boalt) was recently forced to amend its racist
ways. It was accepting people not based on absolute merit.

What it would do would be to take the black candidates and place
them on their own, distinct list, and then accept the X top percentage,
where X was the number required to make the required racial composition
desired.

This was done because if all the students were accepted on merit only,
without regard to race, by Berkeleys own admission, they would
have 0 (zero) black law students.

Racial quotas. Racisim -- the selection of people based on skin color.

And Berkely actually acted offended that it was accused of wrongdoing.



Harvard meanwhile, was complaining in some convoluted fashion (like
all Politcally Coorect reasoning -- it ain't) that the increased
"bidding" for black students was causing (!!!) a condition of
selection based on merit, rather than on need!

Harvard actually illustrated a case of very large scholarships being
offered to a very qualified black student, even though his parents 
were well off ($80,000+ income). Somehow, Harvard compalined that this
meant scholarships were going to those people based on merit and
ignoring those without merit but that did have "need".

A University complaining that it was being forced to select on
merit rather than need.



I think even Goebbels would have blanched at giving out THAT PR
release.




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:58:38 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Oct8.211349.19801@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <97989@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>Man can exist without individually owned property (beyond his
>>own body) as long as he can overcome his possessiveness.

>Eh? Without air, water, food, shelter, clothing, medical care, ...
>All those tangible items of property -- man can exist without 'em?

Shall I be explicit? Notice I said "individually-owned". Humans
are perfectly capable of eating and living communally.

>Not me.

Well, then don't become a Shaker. (It may be too late, anyhow!)  :-)

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cramer@optilink.uucp (Clayton Cramer): Message-ID: <12133@optilink.UUCP>
I realize it's difficult for a person as depraved as [Brian Kane].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky ba.politics:6126 talk.politics.misc:52114
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Phil, a Name-caller, too?
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:31:06 GMT

In article <98064@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >>>>Clayton lists his sources, people that are professionsal in
    >>>>the field, and "Gener Smith" counters with the experiences of
    >>>>his mother (!!!) who says that her experience was that the
    >>>>scholastic level was "low"! His mother! I.e., you are wrong
    >>>>because my mommy said so!!
    >>
    >I think you missed the crux of my argument.
    >
    >You've taunted Gene Smith with "your mommy this..."
    >
    >Sounds to me like junior-high-school level ribbing.
    >
    >This from a guy who complains that he is head-and-shoulders
    >above the rest of the crowd in terms of dignity and
    >politesse.
    >
    >Try again. You're just like everyone else here.

1. The guy DID use him mommy as an authortive source!! It was no taunt.

2. I've never ever claimed anuthing about being above the fray.

Don't be such an asshole and accuse me of things which exist ONLY in your
imagination. You have a REAL problem with this.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len B.)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Decaturville, TN
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:47:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.144329.6540@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1bktscINNl4t@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>    >Phil, I see that you and Bush are running against Congress
>    >not against Clinton. Did Clinton do that? If not the fact
>    >that some Democrats did has very little if any bearing on the
>    >matter.
>
>Eh? Oh excuse me -- you must be new around here. I don't vote, as it is
>immoral. But, it is enjoyable watching America's equivalent of Stalin
>and Hitler go at it.
>
Yes we know Philly..you are our RNA...Resident Net Asshole.
--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: roy@panix.com (Roy Radow)
Subject: Re: Phil Ronzone sez: YOU LIE!!!
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 04:39:18 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Oct12.171708.5265@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <1992Oct12.161220.15474@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>    >Your citation of the detective who opined that the membership
>    >of Nambla consisted almost entirely of sadistic child-rapists
>    >is a good example of the limitation of this perspective.


>I never said that. I quoted the officer as saying all the child molestors
>he dealt with had an interest in, material from, or were members in NAMBLA.


For those who may have missed it before, below are the findings of a
Special Subcommittee on Investigations concerning NAMBLA.



GCN September 21-27, 1986

WASHIINGTON, DC - The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)
has been cleared of any criminal wrong-doing by the U.S. Senate
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. (See GCN, Vol. 12, No. 26)

The subcommittee reached its conclusion after a two-year probe into
pedophilia and pornography, which included information gathering by
undercover police officers. In the 76-page report issued early last
month by chair William V. Roth (R-Del.), the subcommittee states that
NAMBLA did not engage in any criminal conspiracy to violate laws
against the sexual exploitation of children. Nor was NAMBLA engaged in
any organized distribution of pornography depicting minors.

*****
 To quote from the US Senate Investigations Report- Lt. William Thorne,
a detective with the New Jersey Prosecutor's Office testified:

"'pro-pedophilia groups such as NAMBLA "are not as severe a threat to
our children as we may feel they are."  It is the pedophile with no
organized affiliations who is the real threat to children, Thorne said.'"

******

These findings were the results of exhaustive investigations by
police, the FBI and US postal inspectors. 

None of these could be accused of being "soft on child molesters".

Yours in Liberation,

Roy

-- 
Roy Radow               roy@panix.com         ...rutgers!cmcl2!panix!roy
North American Man/Boy Love Association -For a packet containing a sample
Bulletin, publications list and membership information send $1.00 postage
to: NAMBLA Info,  Dept.RR,  PO Box 174,  Midtown Station,  NYC NY  10018.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: No on 9
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:13:49 GMT

In article <97989@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >In article <1992Oct4.203257.29830@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>Man is nothing without property. If you do not have the right
    >>to your own body (not being sold into slavery for example)
    >>
    >Man can exist without individually owned property (beyond his
    >own body) as long as he can overcome his possessiveness.
    >
    >As for one's own body being one's property, that is absolute.
    >
    >Which is why an argument could be made that what one does in
    >private should not matter in public.

Eh?

Without air, water, food, shelter, clothing, medical care, ...

All those tangible items of property -- man can exist without 'em?

Not me.


If I, Iosef Stalin, agree that you own your own body, but that I,
Iosef Stalin own all the water, food, clothing, shelter and that
you can't own them in any way -- then where are you?

Up feces creek, eh?



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

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