HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: loren@netcom.com (Loren Hart)
Subject: Re: Recall for Gov. Wilson is ON!!!!
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 19:56:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: ca

		BITE 'EM BACK
	Organization Meeting to Recall:

	    Governor Pete Wilson
	Assembly Speaker Willie Brown
    Senate President Pro Tem David Roberti

    Come to 485 Auzerais, San Jose
	Tuesday    9-8-92  at 7:00 pm
	Wednesday  9-8-92  at 7:00 pm
	Thursday   9-8-92  at 7:00 pm
	Friday     9-8-92  at 7:00 pm


The meeting will be in a warehouse behind the Buffalo Soldier office.
Parking is limited so either get there early or park on the street or
in the OSH parking lot two blocks away.


		 Josefa  Gifford
       Royal |      |      |
    -----+---+------+------+----- San Carlos
 ^    OSH|   |      |      | 
 |	 |   |      | 485  | 
 N  -----+---+---+--+------+----- Auzerais
 |	     |   |  |      |
 ^  =========|=================== 280
	     |
	 Bird Ave
-- 
=============================================================================
Mr Loren L. Hart                                       The Ada Ace Group, Inc
loren@netcom.com                                       P.O. Box 36195
				                       San Jose, CA  95158
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7837 talk.politics.misc:45692
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 9 Sep 92 10:32:52 GMT
Distribution: na,world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <12158@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
[text of AB2601 deleted]
> As you can see, sexual orientation is not defined by this bill.
> Rape is definitely a sexual orientation; so is child molesting.
> Disgusting, immoral, horrifying sexual orientations -- but
> nonetheless, sexual orientation.  AB 101, at least, defined
> what it meant.

Thanks for the best laugh of the day, Clayton.  This really reveals the
extent of your paranoia, that you're willing to go so far off the deep end.
No, Clayton, rape and child molestation are not sexual orientations by any
definition that I've read.  They are sexual orientations only in your
narrow mind.  Please do let the rest of us know just how you reached this
startling conclusion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Prop. 13 and California's fiscal crisis
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:55:11 GMT
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA

In article <32620003@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com>, megana@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Megan Adams) writes:
> Another effect of prop 13 is to drive young wage earners out of state. Why?
> Because why buy a house here when you will pay ten times the property tax
> of the rich old geezer down the street who bought his house back in the 
> early 70's. 
> 
> Grossly unfair. 
> 
> (On a call-in radio show I heard several people who were planning to move 
> make the above argument.)

  Then, more than likely they are misinformed. California's _base rate_
is generally less than other states. There are many reasons to leave
California and I have my own list, but this is not one of them. Sales
Tax and Income Tax (and "temporary" earthquake taxes...) are the biggest 
tax evils in California, not property tax.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Herschensohn response to Genis
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:26:38 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

Today June Genis posted a message admonishing Bruce Herschensohn for his
behavior during the United We Stand Forum this past weekend.  She
complained specifically that Bruce didn't want to appear on the forum that
the third party candidates were invited to.  I called the Herschensohn
people and this is the response I have gotten:

* Bruce was specifially invited to speak separately.
* Bruce was not informed about the second panel until
  about 2 hours before the event.
* Bruce's schedule on Sunday did not allow for him to
  participate in the panel discussion.

In addition, they wanted me to let you know that Herschensohn picked up
some key endorsments from top Perot people and that there was a good
reaction to his comments.

Thanks!

--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:30:40 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <38058@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
wrote:

> How demanding you are, after your cute little .signature file.
> I've see enough Herschenson ads and statements to know that he values
> anything or anyone different than he is about as much as other Fascists did.

You remind me a of a guy on CompuServe that has the same
namecalling-without-explanation debate style as yourself.

Facism is a strong accussation.  I ask for examples, you provide none. 
Namecalling is easy.  Explaining positions is not.  Let's see some meat to
your insults.

--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Hot Young Neutron Star
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:46:25 GMT
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA

In article <mike02442920801200107@batpad.lgb.ca.us>, mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor) writes:
> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> We should start calling you Hot Young Neutron Star.  I've never
> encountered anything as dense.

  Actually, I think that a neutron star is the burnt out core of an exploded
star (red giant?) which has collapsed upon itself. [I'm sure that the
*real* Hot Young Star could elaborate far more eloquently than my pseudo
understanding from Scientific American articles...]
  This analogy seems to be even more apt. Anchient arguments from large 
bags of wind which are so contraditory they explode and collapse from the
shear weight of the bullshit. The dense part factors in when he doesn't
even understand why it happened...

-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7540 talk.politics.misc:44342 ba.politics:5121
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 14 Sep 92 06:51:27 GMT
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
> I would be happiest of all if homosexuals stopped trying to involve
> the government in telling consenting adults what they may do in
> private.

Do you stay after work to read and post news?  Or do you do it on
company time?  Just curious...



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us
[] Long Beach, California
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7620 talk.politics.misc:44740
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:36:44 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <8284.28995@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>, lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
# Cramer you are such a jerk. Just how the heck old are you
# anyhow??? You talk like a 24 year old. And yu think that 4 out
# of those 5 DID NOT play around??? You think that they *did it*
# just for kids????? You are to silly to take seriously!!!!
# Womens physical proclivity toward unbridled and unmatchable
# sexuality is by far superior to men's. I don't believe for one
# minute that those males inovlved in polygamy had faithful
# wives...IMPOSSIBLE!!!! One woman alone has the capacity to
# totally exhaust 3 men. You're out of your mind pal!
# 
# Len

I'm happy being monogamous, but I assure you that meeting the
"unbridled and unmatchable" demands of several wives would be not
be a problem.

I'm sorry to hear about your problems with those voracious,
demanding women.  Perhaps your diet is inadequate to the
challenge? :-)
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7548 ca.environment:878
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:50:05 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <12246@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>I'm happy being monogamous, but I assure you that meeting the
>"unbridled and unmatchable" demands of several wives would be not
>be a problem.

If you were happy being monogamous, meeting the demands of several
wives WOULD be a problem.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ca.politics:7611 talk.politics.misc:44732
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:24:06 GMT
Distribution: na,world
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <194547@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
> In article <12158@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# [text of AB2601 deleted]
# # As you can see, sexual orientation is not defined by this bill.
# # Rape is definitely a sexual orientation; so is child molesting.
# # Disgusting, immoral, horrifying sexual orientations -- but
# # nonetheless, sexual orientation.  AB 101, at least, defined
# # what it meant.
# 
# Thanks for the best laugh of the day, Clayton.  This really reveals the
# extent of your paranoia, that you're willing to go so far off the deep end.
# No, Clayton, rape and child molestation are not sexual orientations by any
# definition that I've read.  They are sexual orientations only in your
# narrow mind.  Please do let the rest of us know just how you reached this
# startling conclusion.
# 
# Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of

To quote Mr. Kane:

$ They're behaviors. Rape is not a sexual orientation. Neither is
# child molestation. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation.

Oh, but that's right, pedophilia != child molestation, the new
liberal mantra. :-)
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7496 talk.politics.misc:44070 ba.politics:5079 soc.motss:38426
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,soc.motss
Subject: Phil Ronzone says he looks for dirty pictures (Was Re: ...harassing calls)
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor)
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 09:44:51 PDT
Followup-To: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Distribution: world
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
> In article <1992Sep6.221015.6614@tc.cornell.edu> shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes:
> >In article <szpndcp.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>     >|Well, I don't make my denouncements public. In July of 1991,
>     >when |a (presume homosexual) posted the "boys and a pony
>     >.gif" to a.b.p.e., with |obvious underage boys, i immediately
>     >emailed a complaint to him. |the guy worked at the same
>     >company. when he ignored it, i went |thru the chain of
>     >command.
>     >
>     >Again, completely irrelevant. The questions remain: what are
>     >you doing about heterosexual pederasts posting pictures of
>     >underage girls to apbe? When will you apologize for
>     >heterosexual fashion fraud? If you're going to demand that
>     >all gay people consider ourselves responsible for NAMBLA,
>     >symmetry requires that all heterosexuals be held for all the
>     >evils ever committed by any heterosexual, anywhere. So much
>     >for individual responsibility, eh Phool? Why don't you go
>     >over and stand next to Cretin in the "Not a libertarian but
>     >plays one on the net" line.
> 
> You have a MAJOR problem with facts. You asked me what I was doing
> about posters of (inappropriate/illegal/immoral) material in abpe,
> and I replied. Hardly irrelevant. As for the rest, I make no such demands.

I still want to know what your interest in reading a.b.p.e was in the
first place.  I think it is very relevant to the discussion at hand,
because it is the readers of a.b.p.e that create the demand which the
posters fulfill.  You should not be surprised to find images with a
sexual content or a component of nudity in that group, but for some
reason, you were not only surprised, but shocked enough to mount a
net.campaign against the poster.

So, Phil - please tell us what draws you to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.
Were you upset at the boy-and-pony-show picture because it didn't
have any big tits?



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us
[] Long Beach, California
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 17:47:44 GMT

In <1992Sep10.154451.1822@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, Lawrence C. Foard writes:

>In article <12195@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>
>>This is exactly why I can't take homosexuals seriously.  I have
>>repeatedly made it clear that I want the government to leave
>>people alone unless they engage in force or fraud against others,
>>and you have this crazy idea that I would support some sort of
>>extermination scheme.  Not at all, and I would vigorously
>>oppose (by all means necessary) any such effort to exterminate
>>homosexuals.

>No problem here.

>So what about a compromise then:

>Remove all discrimination laws (including any regarding religion), and
>make homosexuals and heterosexuals equal in all respects under the law.
>Marriages, military service, equal protection from police, etc.

>I'd vote for it...

Marriages?  I'm not sure.  I'm not sure that the government should be providing
special benefits for marriage of any kind--such as the lower married rate which
is entrenched in tax law.  Benefits given to "married couples" by employers are
a bit more debatable.  Employers should be given the right to define for them-
selves what "marriage" is--if they want to provide benefits for it at all.
Maybe they will support "same sex marriages;" then again, maybe not.

If they *do* provide benefits, they can decide for themselves how to define it.
If their definition is unpalatable to a large percentage of the population,
then they will suffer in trying to do business--I don't think I'd want to do
business with anyone if I feel they are discriminating unfairly.

I think the restrictions about homosexuals in the military are ridiculous, and
equal protection laws are already on the books.  The Constitution also does not
exclude homosexuals from its protection.  The only change that needs to be done
is the *enforcement* of these laws, which in many cases have been lax.  More
laws are redundant and unnecessary. No government agency should sanction any
type of discrimination.  Private businesses are another story.

Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
***************************************************************************
"In a free government the protection for civil rights must be the same as that
for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:21:32 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <athos-140992094831@kip2-36.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>In article <38020@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
>wrote:
>Money that is *earned* through your work is what should be taxed.  Period. 
>Money for services rendered should be taxed.  Period.  Other monies, such
>as gifts, dividends and such are not *income* and therefore should not be
>taxed.

This is an opinion. It is nothing more. You may of course feel free to
define income using whatever twisted definition you wish. Other than the
other rabid right-wingers on the net and in society, you will convince no one
using the slightest common sense. Have at it.

Now, an equally valuable opinion might be that the person doing work or
providing a service is contributing something of value to society, and
therefore should not be taxed, with the net sum of the output labor and
the incoming money equaling zero. Only those transfers of value which 
are not the result of earned income should be taxed, such as inheiritance or
gifts or the like (in other words, the net transfer of value is inward, not
zero).

My opinion is that to the person getting the loot, income is income
is income. In the case of some, he did little or nothing except be 
born in the right spot to warrent the loot. In the case of others
income, he provided goods and/or services in exchange. In both cases
money has changed hands from someone else to him, thus increasing his worth.
I feel absolutely no qualms at all about taxing this INCOME at the same rate
as all other income is taxed, and will never ever ever support any other
position. I will join you in the call for much lower rates overall, and
inflation indexing of all taxes where this is an issue.

>I love you arguments here.  You provide none.  Explain to me this part of
>your statement: "Herschenson doesn't know of the value of anything else.
>>HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.

How demanding you are, after your cute little .signature file.
I've see enough Herschenson ads and statements to know that he values
anything or anyone different than he is about as much as other Fascists did.


-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Herschensohn response to Genis
Date: 15 Sep 1992 13:02:54 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Sep15.045533.25333@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>In article <athos-140992162324@kip2-7.apple.com>,
>athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>>Today June Genis posted a message admonishing Bruce Herschensohn for his
...
>presentation, only that he sit on the same platform with us.  All of
>us would have been willing to adjust our format to match his
>preplanned presentation.  We just wanted equal time and the ability
>of the audience to ask questions of all of us at the same time.
>
>
>/June

Though I respect your positions and I think you would make a good 
Senator, I wonder if asking for equal time is just a little bit
un-libertarian. Why shouldn't the people who organized the event
be able to do so in any manner they want. Why should they be obligated
to give everyone equal time?

What is the total number of candidates running for the Senate? If 
they each get equal time, how much total time does it take for 
someone who believes that only the two major candidates are likely
to win, and only want to compare them to get say a half hour for each?

Suppose we require equal time for all candidates for all offices? Is
this wise? Is it efficient? Is is libertarian?

Never the less I wish you well. I am just trying to keep things in
perspective.

Richard Foy  
Redondo Beach CA       Standard Disclaimer


Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:06:40 GMT

In article <92254.38112.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>Marriages?  I'm not sure.  I'm not sure that the government should be providing
>special benefits for marriage of any kind--such as the lower married rate which
>is entrenched in tax law.  

This is a widely held belief which simply isn't true.  The only advantage
that accrues to married couples is the case where one partner doesn't
work.  In the case where both partners work (the majority of cases I
would wager), married couples pay MORE than they would if they filed
as single people.  Let me give a quick example from the 1990 tax tables:

Lets assume for arguments sake that we have two couples - one married
one un-married.  Both partners work.  One partner has an adjusted gross 
income of $40,000 and the other has an AGI of $25,000.

In the case of the un-married couple we have:

AGI                     $40,000         $25,000
standard deduction        3,250           3,250
exemption                 2,050           2,050
			-------         -------
Taxable income           34,700          19,700
Total tax                 7,181           2,981
			=======         =======

Total tax bill: $10,162

In the case of the married couple we have:

AGI                     $65,000
standard deduction        5,450
exemption                 4,100
			-------
Taxable income           55,450
Total tax                11,307
			=======

Total tax bill: $11,307

In this case, the married couple pays $1,145 more than the un-married
couple.  Quite simply, the so-called tax benefits of marriage don't
exist.

Guido

Xref: sparky ca.politics:7523 talk.politics.misc:44248 ba.politics:5109
From: karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: This can't be right ...
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:53:56 GMT

In article <72236@apple.Apple.COM> galcher@apple.com (Bill Galcher) writes:
>I was reading through one of the (official) newsfeeds that our machine gets
>and saw this news article.  Am I just way off base, or are there a couple of
>missing decimal points that should be in the depth values given in this
>article?

You're probably used to the depths of California strike-slip
earthquakes, which are very shallow (typically less than 20 km)
compared to those associated with subduction type earthquakes.

Phil

Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes