HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 22 Dec 1992 19:27:26 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Dec22.060522.8489@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>I quoted a WSJ article about the difference in how politicians accused
>of sexual misconduct had been treated. The article mentioned Sol Wachtler
>without mentioning his political affiliation -- as the article was
>portraying support by some very liberal Democrats, include Democratic
>NY Governor Cuomo, it was a natural assumption om my part to assume that
>Wachtler was Democratic. Well, he wasn't.
>

So you finally admitted that you were wrong.  Gee Whizz  this is a break
through.  Anyway why would you make the assumption in the first place,
especially when it involves a biased newspaper like the WSJ.  Why not
look for the facts, before making the jump. 

>Sexual misconduct by the Politically Correct politicians is treated much
>much more lightly than equivalent misconduct by Politically Incorrect
>politicians.
>

And this is your opinion, if you can collect together all of the treatment
statistics for each case then make a comparasion (correlation) between
PC and non-PC you might have a case.

>Packwood, the boobhead, is initially charge by women with incidents that
>
>Now, a very very liberal Republican -in-name judge basically stalks a woman
>that ended their affair, threatens her children, and he gets the Governor
>
>And Democrats can commit manslaughter and cowardice (ask Kopechne's ghost),
>fuck teenage Congressional pages, or keep homosexual prostitures in their
>homes, or try to get the mistresses on the state payroll, and nary a peep.
>
>I mean, WHY hasn't NOW gone after Ted Kennedy? Or Clinton for Flowers?
>
>
You mean you just realized what happens in the real world.  Everything that
occurs in the processes of society have bias builtin from it's participants.
everyday life involves unfair judgements and actions.  The political realm
has its agenda and will fulfill it as best as possible, at least until the
citizens in a unified manner put a stop to it, but that is doubtful at this
time or even in the near future.  IMHO it is not really what party you are
affliated with, but what power and money you are affliated with, that makes
all the difference in how you will be treated.

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 06:40:14 GMT

In article <ljfbdgINN1gf@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
    >If the guys at the TailHook Club thought that their behavior
    >was within the permissible bounds of male behavior
    >(presumably they did, else they would not have acted as they
    >did) they might imagine (and not particularly wish to
    >experience) gay males acting in a similar fashion. Note also
    >the comments of Larry Michels (now ex-head of SCO): "how
    >serious a crime is that [unwanted hugging and kissing]?"
    >Presumably, the crime is no more (and no less) serious if the
    >unwanted hugging and kissing is homosexual.

Ugh. I know the Michels. My personal, own and private opinion, based on
experiences I have seen and documented (there, that'll keep the libel
lawyers at bay I hope) is that they are lying scum. Perosnal direct
experience.

But the point I want to make is the workings of freedom (and capitalism) in
this case.

No charges have been filed, yet Michels has stepped down. As SCO wishes to
go public, it is not good for an IPO to have such shit going on. He was
most likely forced out.

And if he really did do ALL the things he's now being accused of, the fiduciary
duties of the board of directors would have forced him to be fired in any
case.

One interesting aside -- I remember (can't find the clipping Maddi) one of
his victims was a lawyer -- who said something about putting up with the shit
because she needed the job.

What kind of an explanation is that? And what does it make that lawyer?



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7869 ca.politics:10481
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Omnipotent ecologist speaks (Re: The lack of vision)
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:59:10 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

>In article <1992Dec21.025449.10271@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>>2. "Acid rain shows minimal effects on crops and forests; only a small
>>   number of lakes have been acidified" (such as closely downwind of
>>   high sulfur large scale power generation plant -- but then, that's why
>>   they tend to locate those things in the desert).
>

Well I suppose all of the problems in Europe could just be moved to the
desert.

Well to let you in on another secret, which may be of more interest,
since it involves private property, Ford and Nissan have been making
moves to combat the effects of acid rain on the finishes of their
cars.  It appears that claims against the companies for pitted or
poor paint jobs is on the rise.
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: David;'s challenge
Date: 29 Dec 92 05:11:19 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Dec28.165928.1929@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
    >In article <1992Dec28.111330.988@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>And this at a time when other Republicans like Packwood are
    >>getting bashed?
    >>
    >>Note that Wacthler is well know for his very "correct" views
    >>on womens issues and has had strong Demovratic political
    >>support.
    >>
    >Note that Mr. Packwood ALSO has very "correct" views wrt
    >women. He is one of the most liberal Republican members of
    >the Senate, and has been very supportive of women's issues.
    >So what's your point ?

a. Only liberal politicians harass women? :-)

b. Packwood has some VERY Politically Incorrect views, not the least of which
   is defending the loggers against the spotted owl lovers. He even supported
   the revision to some of the EPA's authority to include considering job
   loss -- now, considering the impact of things on PEOPLE is just so anti-PC.

   He also defeated a woman candidate in 1986 and a much more liberal
   (Democratioc) candidate the last time.




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: pressure those nasty Bay Area cable companies!
Date: 31 Dec 92 23:33:02 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1992Dec30.210516.27444@smsc.sony.com>, by markc@smsc.sony.com (Mark Corscadden):
> ...Someone suggested ba.broadcast but reading
> the stuff there it doesn't seem like the right choice of newsgroup.

That's right, you might get flamed big time!

> 1)  Are you sick of the way your Bay Area cable company is treating
>     its customers - i.e. you?

Yes, that's why I give no money to those morons, and I
suggest that others do the same.

> 2)  Are you sick *enough* that you're interested in taking political
>     action to force the offending companies to mend their ways?

No, I'm sick of people suggesting governmental intrusion
everytime a business does something that they do not like.

> By the way, my company is South Bay Cablevision.  The service goes out
> completely at least once a month, it seems...
> To top it off, their number to call for problems
> with service is always, always, always messed up...
> Right, trouble with the phone system, trouble transmitting
> the cable signal, *big* trouble with their billing computer ...

Yep, and their ways will continue as long as they know that
people like you will put up with it and will send them a
check every month.  What business would do otherwise?

> South Bay's latest cute trick was to send out notices to *every* customer
> in Mountain View that their service was about to be cut off for failure
> to pay...

And people willingly give these folks money?  I would love to
have a business where I treated people like crap and they sent
me money for the priveledge.  Actually, the DA would probably
call this extortion if indeed they violated their contracts.

> These cable companies need to be taken by the *nether regions* and shown
> *frimly* how to do it right!  And that don't mean doing it *to* us anymore!

Yeah, hear ye, hear ye!  Let's show them the strong arm of the law!  :-)
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Maddi - future staff assistant for Walsh?
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 07:26:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.003407.7288@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
    >>BTW - why haven't you admitted you were wrong on Michels yet?
    >>He STILL isn't charged with anything. Hell, to my knowledge,
    >>there isn't even any attempt on anyone's part to bring
    >>anything before a grand jury. Of course, Maddi, I guess you
    >>just want to have the hanging now and the trial later.
    >>Anything other than to admit you were wrong.
    >>
    >Another loaded question. I haven't "admitted" being wrong
    >because I was not wrong. You, however, were wrong.
    >Repeatedly.

O.K. you're not wrong. Someone forged your name to the post quoted below.
Note how this forger makes blatant stupid assumptions, mis-asserting that
I believe because Michels was not charged with rape that "nothing was going on".

Now I'm sure you get just as mad as I do at this kind of stupid non-thought.

My whole point, and what started the whole thing, was that FOA can bring
about fairly decent justice. Michels certainly was doing things along the
lines of sexual harassment -- and certainly no rational person could think
for a minute that I would claim nothing was happening -- that would be at
odds with mu whole post.


From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
>>But the point I want to make is the workings of freedom (and capitalism) in
>    >>No charges have been filed, yet Michels has stepped down. As
>    >>SCO wishes to go public, it is not good for an IPO to have
>    >>such shit going on. He was most likely forced out.
>    >>
>    >Wrong again. Charges have been filed with the State EEO
>    >office by two of the five. Civil lawsuits have also been
>    >filed. So what are you talking about?
>
>As I said, no charges have been filed. A complaint is not a charge,
>nor is a lawsuit. When the District Attorney and a Grand Jury indict
>Michels for rape, now THAT's a charge. As in "an indictment charging ...".
>
>Now, care to publicly admit you're wrong?

Since such incidents are RARELY charged as criminal behavior,
it is misleading of you to imply that since no CRIMINAL charges
have been filed, that therefore nothing is going on.  A CIVIL
lawsuit is still damaging to the company, which is why Michels
stepped down.  Michels is not accused of rape, yet you imply a
lack of a rape charge as proof that there is no proof of
wrongdoing.  Very misleading, Phil.  The question you raised
was that "No charges were filed, yet Michels has stepped down."
-- 
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: More Child Molestors for Christ
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 06:26:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.213424.1087@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >
    >
    >>Packwood, the boobhead, is initially charge by women with
    >>incidents that were all MORE than 10 years old. And what has
    >>he done so far? Well, a lot of pinching and some fondling.
    >>And the screams for his head mount, most politically
    >>motivated.
    >>
    >Phil, unless you learn to get your facts straight, do not get
    >into an argument with me. The person you are thinking of is
    >not Packwood but Inouye. The Packwood charges stem over 15
    >years and some are recent. Inouye is a Democrat, the charges
    >are 10 years old, and there is only one accuser. There are
    >now 15 Packwood accusers. Perhaps this is why they're not
    >going after Inouye's head. I don't know. But do not confuse
    >the two. You are prone to mix up facts and I will not let you
    >get away with it.

Gee, Maddi, why don't you learn to read? See that first word "initially"?
Know what that means? Think about it, I know you can.


Packwood's initial accusation was made almost 2 years ago, over an incident
that happened 9 year previous to that accusation. After the election, the
initial accusations (there were more than one) were trumpeted in "the hope
that more women would [find the courage] to step forward". And they did.
First ten, then 15.

And as you point out, Inouye, a Democrat, doesn't seem to have his
scalp in danger. His accusation (assumed to be the first) was from
Senator-elect Carol Mosley Braun, who [decision] to spur a political
career was reportedkly outrage over Anita Hill's "mistreatment".

Thge key issue remains -- why NOW, why Republican mainly? These issues
are a decade or more old in these cases. This has NO suggestion of a witch
hunt?

    >
    >>I mean, WHY hasn't NOW gone after Ted Kennedy? Or Clinton for
    >>Flowers?
    >>
    >Because Clinton was never accused of harassing Flowers?

Oh, then NOW approves of a political official getting a State job for
his mistress? I must be in error again, I thought NOW was against that
sort of stuff.

Of course, if it had been Bush, we would have no doubt been deafened by now
by the howls of outrage ...


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Duh, he don't need no facts, he'sa Politically Correct, duh ...
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 10:57:27 GMT

    >In article <1992Dec23.060102.13123@netcom.com>
    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>(An anonymous asshole writes) Well, some yahoo regurgitates
    >>the local eco-agit-prop that "acid rain is duh, killing the
    >>forests", and when I call the turkey on it, "it" can't admit
    >>that "it" was wrong.
    >>
    >>So I guess now "it" resorts to "acid rain is killing the car
    >>finishes".
    >>
    >>Oh sink me .....
    >>
    >>
    >It is easy to sink you. If we look at the majority on the
    >newsgroup, they disagree with most of what you say, not
    >becuase it is fashionable, but becuase you lack insight and
    >the ability to interpret information correctly.
    >
    >Forest have and are dying from acid rain effects on soil and
    >lakes.

So, you believe that forests are dying fromm acid rain? Golly, that's
going to surprise a lot of scientists. Pray tell, upon WHAT scientific
evidence do you base this on? We are breathless ...

In the meantime, to further this interesting debunking, I've ordered
through the library a political analysis -

    "Reports on the failure of Congress and the Bush administration
    to study the National Acid Precipitation Assesment Project
    (NAPAP) report before voting on the Clean Air act. A $500 million,
    ten year study initiated by Congress which concluded that the
    President's crash program to cut sulfur dioxide emissions has no
    ecological, health, or economic justification. By W.T. Brookes.

and a scientific one on acid rain on lakes and such -

    [Analysis] based the Environmental Protection Agency's National
    Surface Water Survey (NSWS) to indetidy the role of acidic
    deposition relative to other factors in causing acidic conditions
    in an estimated 1180 lakes and 4570 streams in the United States.
    Science, 5/24/91.

W.T. Brooks quotes from the Science article in making his point.

Y'all go ahead and get your copies too. I know that it is such a drag for
all you PC(tm) types to have to deal with facts, but hey, life's tough.



BTW - for other literature-ignorami, "Oh sink me" is the line the Scarlet
Pimpernel used when told a lie of such vast proportions that his only
socially correct response (when he was playing the fop) was to feign
great amusement.




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: brad@optilink.COM (Brad Yearwood)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: dangerous group (was: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ)
Keywords: Phil,Ronzone,foam,mouth,bite,rabies,look,out
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:17:26 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Dec29.233414.6981@smsc.sony.com>, markc@smsc.sony.com (Mark Corscadden) writes:
# I'm new to the ba news hierarchy (though I've lived in the Bay Area for
# fourteen years) so I was looking around for a group in which to discuss
# the evil ways of our local cable company. ...

TV: is it actually worth paying for?  All the local cable company does is
to deliver, however extravagantly, a bunch of mind-rot which partitions
experience into 12-minutes-between-commercials chunks.  Do you really want
your kids growing up with a 12 minute attention span?

# ... seething cauldron of nothing ...

You rang?

# Such people.  Such articles.  If usenet was a cage with Phil Ronzone
# locked inside, I'd be sure not to put *my* hand through the bars!  I'm
# out of here.

Wimp.

Brad Yearwood    brad@optilink.com   {uunet, pyramid}!optilink!brad
Petaluma, CA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Is this wrong, or what?
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:08:22 GMT

The following is a true "situation" that happended in the Bay area in the
last five years. It is so unbelievable that I'd thought I ask if others
have the same sense of outrage that I have.

If you don't have any sense of outrage, I'd like to know that as well.

Maybe it's juts me ....

A medium size, well known corporation in the multi-billion dollar range.

A senior officer (John Doe) of the corporation drove his vehicle off road,
killing himself in the process. The next day, as the news of this accident
spread through the company, another piece of news emerged.

John Doe was to be arrested for child molestation. He had been molesting
the 14-year old daughter of one of his employees for 5 years.

He was aware of the forthcoming arrest, and had described his suicide the
day before his death to several friends.

Now, what enraged me was the attitude of the corporation.

The corporation did not offer one word of sympathy or contrition to the
girl or her parents. There was no word of any investigation. At John
Doe's funeral, the entire set of senior executives turned out with
nothing but praise.

The senior executive passed unanimously a memorial resolution filled
with glowing terms about John Doe's life.

5 months later, the corporation, as many corporations do, issued a
company medal with John Doe's picture -- the medal being issued to
others with one of the criterion being [work with young people!!!!!]!.

One senior executive did write a protest about the "panegyrics to a child
molestor ...", but he was pressured to keep silent.



Now, in my book, this man, John Doe, should not be honored, and it is a
horrible example that a corporation would paint such rosy picture of
such a sick man. And to issue a medal with this guy's picture on it is
all the more obscene.

Now one extreme account of this asserts that this "sweeping under the rug"
is more or less because the other senior executives are guilty, in though
if not deed of wanting or doing [sexual encounters] with underage girls.

I believe this is hyperbole, but WHY would a corporation honor such a
dishonorable person.

Or is it just me?
.

-- 
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: A Call For Reality - An End To Mean Spirited Posting
Keywords: Pedophile Acid Rain Pollution
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:23:44 GMT

In article <4909@wet.UUCP> mhi@wet.UUCP (Philip E. Murphy) writes:
    >I know personally of environmental damage to areas of the
    >world through poor management by U.S. Corporations. There is
    >a far cry from reading the pa- per to get your statistics
    >versus getting the real scoop by working for com- panies
    >engaged in cleaning up the environment. 

How is getting your information from the presumed bias of a "U.S. Corpoartion"
any better or worse than a company enaged in cleaning up the environment?
Is one more "noble" than the other?

And, BTW, almost ALL U.S. ecological groups are corporations.

U.S. Corporations.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

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