HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Tax Revolt in the SF Mission District?
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:16:58 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Memes-R-Us
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.


rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford) writes:


>It turns out that the merchants and residents have backed down, citing the
>presence of a new station chief and saying that "We want to give him a
>chance."   Despite this attempt at face-saving by the members of the
>association, it's obvious that they felt their will weakening in the
>face of tax liens and business seizures as threatened by the City.

That's too bad. My truck was broken into, in broad daylight, between 3 and
4:30 PM, a few months ago, half a block from Valencia, on 16th Street, on
a Wednesday, middle of the week with people all over the place.

However, I have to say that a large part of the problem is the indifference
of the locals, whom perhaps have become desensitized, as described in Bob's
article.

Also, the proximity of Crack HQ - the housing project at 15th and Guererro -
makes correcting the problem very difficult. The housing project would need
to be emptied ... a painful process to those in genuine need, whom have be-
-come victims of their own housing project's problems.


>This is an excellent illustration of the typical priorities of a government
>bureaucracy.  Murder, assault, rape, vandalism, arson, are all passed off
>with a simple "We understand there is a crime problem." from the office of
>the Mayor.  But let some citizens threaten the established order of things
>by showing signs of taking responsibility for their own lives (and, not
>incidentally, denying the government substantial tax revenues) and
>suddenly the bureaucratic machinery is well-oiled indeed.  If the City
>were half as concerned with the lives and property of it's citizens as it
>appears to be with their tax dollars, then it would probably *assist* ...

Until it gets straightened out I'm not returning to Cafe Picaro. This is a
major loss to the whole neighborhood, if everyone else starts acting the
same way. The Roxie Theater and several other cafes in the neighborhood
exist in a fragile microclimate of economical growth that this is a major
threat to.


-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Gay Child Molesters (Re: Youth Info Needed)
Date: 19 Dec 92 12:41:37 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Dec18.231739.25570@panix.com> roy@panix.com (Roy Radow) writes:
    >Regarding the slogan "Sex by age eight or else it's too
    >late!" This was the slogan of the Rene Guyon Society back in
    >the 1970's. THIS IS NOT, NOR WAS IT EVER, A POSITION OF
    >NAMBLA.

I remember vividly the 60 Minutes interview with a "leader" of NAMBLA.
It was the first time I had ever heard of the group. I believe it
was Mike Wallace who asked the question -- and clearly placed the context of
the statement, and its support, with NAMBLA. I was eating something at the
time, and stopped for minutes with the fork in midair -- I couldn't
believe such evil was present in a civilized society.


Mr. Radow -- you have refused to answer these questions in the past.
Your silence has condemned you. Shall we try this again?

1. Mr. Radow, do you believe sex (by adult) with an 8-year child is
   right or wrong?

2. Mr. Radow, do you believe that an 8-year can consent to sex with an
   adult under any circumstances?

3. To WHAT age do advocate lowering the age of "consent" to? Does not NAMBLA
   want NO age of consent?
-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7816 talk.politics.misc:64878
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Are they not men?
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:33:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1go5pmINN8op@copland.crhc.uiuc.edu>, pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan) writes:
> Hot Young Star writes:
# # Indeed. There were over a hundred reports of sexual misconduct during the
# # Gulf War. Only four were homosexual, and three of those were consensual
# # acts.
# 
# Clayton Cramer writes:
# # [predictable pseudo-math deleted]
# # In that case, 4 homosexual misconducts out of 100
# # total is nothing to brag about -- quite the opposite.
# 
# Clayton, you just can't *stand* it when *anyone* says *anything* nice 
# about gays, can you?  But you're not prejudiced or anything, really.

I can't stand it when people engage in the sort of misleading nonsense
that is Mr. Kane's stock in trade.

# The poster makes a valid point: with Tailhook, we began to notice and think
# about the long tradition of heterosexual hijinks the services have always
# had a reputation for.  

Damn straight.  It's a serious problem, and until we as a society decide
to start respecting each other as individuals, instead of seeing everyone
as a sex object, this problem will remain.

# Unlike men who simply love other men, men harassing women are practicing 
# NON-consensual assault.  And it's a longstanding tradition in the service,
# considerably more widespread than homosexuality.

Yup.  It needs to be fixed.

# It's contradictory and hypocritical to go on gay witch-hunts for people who
# haven't bothered anyone, but to ignore the completely unacceptable and 
# offensive behavior of your straight servicemen.

I see no reason for the military to keep out homosexuals.  I was
pointing out, however, that Mr. Kane's pat on the back for homosexuals
is bogus.

# Paul Ryan                  (pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu)     1308 West Main St.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: "homophobic suspects outrage net"
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:28:41 GMT

In article <104795@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >In article <1992Dec12.033943.14198@netcom.com>
    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>Clarence Thomas is flambed for ONE woman's uncorroborated
    >>(and suspect) accusations.
    >>
    >Strange...so was Bill Clinton!
    >
    >>Striking double standard here. -- I believe Gennifer Flowers.
    >>
    >Obviously. Your politics are transparent.

Nope - to you they be most dense.

But you are most wrong.

Now, if Anita Hill had a tape recording and witnesses to her allegations,
then I'd probably believe her too.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: "homophobic suspects outrage net"
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:43:24 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <Bz0yLC.70F@queernet.org> rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.204137.11546@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>writes:
>|> The major point was that if Clinton took marriage vows the besopke
>|> or implied fathfulness, then it IS my business to know if he broke
>|> them. Because it speaks volumes about the kind of man he is. If
>|> he can not keep what IMHO are the MOST important promises a person
>|> can make, then it's all downhill after that.
>|> 

Whoa!!!  thought police - morale police - calling all stations - there has
been a violation of the trusted union of marriage.  It is now everyones
business to know if Bill Clinton has violated those sacred vows, proceed
to Washington, find violator, take necessary action against them.  It is
important that all people know and therefore do what is morally correct
to stop and apprehend these vile violators of the sacred and holy union
of matrimony. Approach with caution, may be armed with other moral concepts.


>|> Unless of course, you consider marriage vows trivial and of no
>|> consequence.


Obviously, 40+ percentage of the people who do get married and then divorced
must think they are trivial.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 19:11:36 GMT

Bruce Overby writes:
>>In other words, Overby's assumption that untrained people are better
>>off submitting than using guns for self-defense is incorrect.  Does
>>Overby have another objection, one that actually has a basis in
>>reality?
>>
>In considering *carjacking specifically*, the assailant is, in
>most cases, anxious to flee quickly. This differentiates this
>crime from other crimes, in which assailants have a vested
>interest in harming or incapacitating their victims.

Unfortunately, (and I mean that most sincerely), that is not always the
case.  Just off the top of my head, I seem to recall that a substantial
percentage (33% to 50%) of carjacking victims suffer some physical harm
during the crime, be it a beating, a stab wound or a gunshot.

I still maintain that violent criminals must be stopped by _any_ means
necessary.

>Therefore,
>I conclude that sensationalizing successful resistance to
>carjackers (as Mr. Cramer did, in my opinion) is not a good
>thing because people who would be better off just *giving up
>the car* (gasp) might be prompted to instead resist.

Hmmm.  Better off in what way?

You know, if I looked out my window and saw someone taking my car (quite
a different thing than trying to forcibly eject me), I wouldn't try to stop
them physically because it wouldn't be a danger to me, I'm insured against
theft.  Someone in a lower income bracket than myself might be at a
substantial hardship if they lost their car and were uninsured.  And god
help them, in these harsh economic times, if their livelihood depends on the
car!

Just a couple more ideas...

     don

Xref: sparky ba.politics:7794 bit.listserv.politics:20185 k12.ed.soc-studies:821
From: lang@igc.apc.org (Andrew Lang)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: AIDS IN CUBA: A Personal Account
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:04:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1325600024:000:1001
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!lang    Dec 16 18:04:00 1992


From: Andrew Lang <lang>
Subject: AIDS IN CUBA: A Personal Account

/* Written 10:19 pm  Dec 15, 1992 by peacenet@igc.apc.org in igc:pn.alerts */
/* ---------- "AIDS IN CUBA: A Personal Account" ---------- */
From: <peacenet>
Subject: AIDS IN CUBA: A Personal Account

From: Andrew Freeman <afreeman>

AIDS IN CUBA: A PERSONAL ACCOUNT

A public forum "AIDS in Cuba: A Personal Account" will be held on Saturday,
December 19, 7:30 p.m., at New College, 777 Valencia St., San Francisco.
Two HIV+ gay Cuban men, Raul Llanos and Dr. Juan Carlos de la Concepcion,
who live in the AIDS sanitorium in Havana will speak about their personal
experiences at the sanitorium, organizing AIDS education/prevention
programs throughout Havana, Cuba's AIDS policy and more. This is the first
time anyone from the sanitorium has visited the U.S. There will be time for
questions and dialogue. Sponsored by: The Latino Network, La Red, CURAS,
Queers for Cuba, Aguilas and GELAAM. For information call (415) 995-4678.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Are they not men?
Date: 15 Dec 92 05:39:12 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <104863@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >The solution is to get gay men to sign documents BEFORE
    >enlisting to get them to promise not to engage in sexual
    >misconduct. But since they apparently contribute a negligible
    >amount compared to het men in this respect, this is not a
    >problem.

What planet do you live on? Excuse me sailor, before we place you on
an all female ship, where you will bunk and shower with women 24 hours
a day, we want you to sign this contract to agree that you will behave
yourself.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7785 talk.politics.misc:64660
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Are they not men?
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:09:40 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: usa
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <13647@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <104863@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>There were over a hundred reports of sexual misconduct during the
>>Gulf War. Only four were homosexual, and three of those were consensual
>>acts.

>No more than 4% of the general population is homosexual.

Sure about that?

>In the military, it's doubtless much lower. Do you think it's even .4% of
>the military is homosexual?

"Doubtless much lower?" On what grounds? I certainly don't think there is
ANY info which would support that assertion---but maybe you mean uncloseted
homosexuals.

I once heard from a former navy man that he estimated that about 25% of sailors
were either homosexual or bisexual. No joke.

Anyhow, aren't you in disagreement with Phil Ronzone? That the army, since it
is supported financially by taxpayers, should be open to every capable and
responsible adult?
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Date: 19 Dec 1992 19:23:26 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Dec19.120605.3981@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>Thre or four "cases" in a week of car owners blowing away attempted
>car jackers would most likely make it not very common.
>
>
Yes materialism to the ultimate.  Just blow em away jack, that it make
stop.  Oh course, let's look at punishment by death, that has sure
cut down on murders, hasn't it?? :->

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: "homophobic suspects outrage net"
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:39:43 GMT

In article <Bz33w9.12@queernet.org> rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
    >In article <1992Dec10.173441.5550@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>In article <Bz0yLC.70F@queernet.org> rogerk@QueerNet.ORG
    >>(Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
    >>>No, but if Bill and Hilary decide that non-exclusivity is the
    >>>way they want to run their marriage, they are welcome to do
    >>>so, and it's none of my business; they do not dishonor their
    >>>vows at all by it.
    >>>
    >>So you, of course, support Senator Packwood. How he runs his
    >>sex life should have no bearing on his office.
    >>
    >>Right?
    >>
    >No, his dalliances were nonconsensual; can't you tell the
    >difference?

Oh, REALLY? I haven't heard about any rape charges. He has asked
people that obviously did NOT want to have anything to do with him,
but so far, I haven't heard a peep from someone that actually went to
bed with him.

Of course, part of what I was pointing out was the difference between
Republican and Democratic sexual "harassment" issues.

Packwood chases women around his desk. For that, he is getting lambasted.

That Democratic judge in NY that sent the murder threat to an ex-lover,
sexually nasty notes to her daughter, and condoms to her son, and made
the threating sick phone calls, HE gets sympathy, including a comment
from Ed Koch about paying "attention to [the man's] accomplishments"
and to "not let this [scandal] besmirch his reputation".

Clarence Thomas is flambed for ONE woman's uncorroborated (and suspect)
accusations.

A senior aide to a Democratic head of a comitee on the DoD sexuals
harasses men (homosexual harassment), and commits rape per the definition
of sleep with him or lose your job -- he is still being protected.
(To be fair, the protection seems to be far more protecting old
and powerful families than Republican .vs Democratic, but, still it's
there).


Striking double standard here.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Health insurance stuff
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:42:08 GMT

In article <liqdq4INNi6a@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
    >If you couldn't tell, I'm somewhat sympathetic to something
    >like a national health plan. Your housekeeper's problem is
    >not the result of a "lifestyle choice", except that she
    >"chose" not to have health insurance (interesting choice on a
    >housekeeper's earnings, too).

Oh yes it is. At two packs a day of cigarettes, that about enough to
pay for Kaiser.

HEr lifestyle choices are NOT my obligation.

WHO pays for this "national health insurance"? Basically, the people
that are already responsible enough to take of themselves!.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: "Blue neck" mutterings
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:24:58 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Dec9.030210.14730@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>O.K. you ignorant jerk, here is a question for you.

You may point out to a person that you feel they are incorrect or wrong
in their facts but to go around calling names is derogatory.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7840 ca.politics:10458
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Are they not men?
Date: 16 Dec 1992 22:49:46 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

|> Hot Young Star writes:
|> > Indeed. There were over a hundred reports of sexual misconduct during the
|> > Gulf War. Only four were homosexual, and three of those were consensual
|> > acts.
|> 
|> Clayton Cramer writes:
|> > [predictable pseudo-math deleted]
|> > In that case, 4 homosexual misconducts out of 100
|> > total is nothing to brag about -- quite the opposite.
|> 
Of course in the military, all homosexual acts are misconducts, while
heterosexual acts are not necessarily misconducts.  So there may have
been thousands of heterosexual acts.  Clayton sees what he
wants to see and ignores reality.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ca
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 12:06:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.211001.226@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
    >Overby "forgets" that carjack victims who SUBMIT are hurt. So
    >are people who resist. We might find that people who resist
    >with some tools are more likely to be hurt than people who
    >submit (which doesn't tell us that their resistance CAUSED
    >their injury), but we might also find that people who resist
    >with certain tools are less likely to be hurt than people who
    >submit. Thus, the details are relevant.

In addition, we must consider the "advertising" aspect. Car jacking
is becoming prevalent because of the media attention -- a case of
"look guys, look at what we can get away with now".

Thre or four "cases" in a week of car owners blowing away attempted
car jackers would most likely make it not very common.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Check your facts before posting, Phil
Date: 20 Dec 1992 20:34:27 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60
Summary: more pretzel logic from the master

Phil Ronzone writes:
>So ignore the political labels Maddi -- let's just look at it as the
>PC .vs. non-PC wars.

I love this guy's material!
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Are they not men?
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:58:02 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Dec15.053912.6265@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <104863@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>The solution is to get gay men to sign documents BEFORE
>>enlisting to get them to promise not to engage in sexual
>>misconduct. But since they apparently contribute a negligible
>>amount compared to het men in this respect, this is not a
>>problem.

>What planet do you live on? Excuse me sailor, before we place you on
>an all female ship, where you will bunk and shower with women 24 hours
>a day, we want you to sign this contract to agree that you will behave
>yourself.

And to think that many straight men still stereotype gay men as having
no control over their sexual conduct.

The complete, UTTER hypocrisy of this all is nerve-jangling.

But what do you expect from a society which permits men to go topless
(most places) but prohibits women to go topless (most places) even
though heterosexual women typically consider a man's chest quite erotic, as
least as significantly as a straight man's erotic response to the female
breasts.

Gay men are constantly exposed to other men's chests. If anything, they've
grown rather blase' about a significant part of homoerotism.
Newsgroups: ba.politics