HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: BullShit
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:03:51 GMT

In <exuptr.757.719096301@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:

>In article <1992Oct12.140734.16084@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>>>      John believes in abortion, believes that productivity in the U.S.
>>>>is faltering, and Clinton is our man.  He is creating a net-roots support
>>>>for these beliefs using being the Devil's Advocate (which is why he wants
>>>>sources, but produces few himself:  He doesn't have to, and believes in the
>>>>opposite).  If this is true, then John actually should be congratulated.
>>>>He has successfully raised the conciousness of this portion of the net, as
>>>>far as I'm concerned.

>>>Again, if my arguments against abortion are "valid", it certainly isn't
>>>because I believe abortion is right or wrong.  And as for not producing
>>>sources, I've yet to see you produce a single one.  On the other hand,
>>>I produced a total of five texts in addition to two from John Iacoletti.
>>>All seven support the point I was arguing with Fred over.

>>Well, all seven did that if you argue the way John does, by selective
>>redefinition and reinterpretation of things.  All seven supported
>>FIRST ELECTRICAL ACTIVITY in the brain, NORMALLY AROUND 8 WEEKS.  For
>>John, this becomes "readable human brainwaves at 5 weeks".  He then
>>went on to talk about when the foetus looked human (except that it
>>didn't), reacting to 'sour' amniotic fluid (when it doesn't have taste
>>buds), feeling pain and having human reflexes when the brain isn't
>>even really functionally connected up yet, etc.


>I was watching Dan Quayle and Al Gore go at it last night, and suddenly, I
>had this feeling of dejavu  ;-)

Do I really want to ask which one I am?  :-)

[If we go by politics, I guess I should just start calling him
'Danforth', hey?  I can live with that.  ;-)]


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:05:29 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Oct06.231458.33891@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>Whatever.  The point is they have fewer expenses than secular private schools,
>who have to pay taxes, which is why most private schools are run by churches. 
>After all, they know a good deal when they see one.  Not to mention the access
>to lots of impressionable young minds to mold, thus ensuring years of
>future collection plate opportunity. 

We already did this one -

Most private schools are NOT associated with churches.  Most of them are
just PRIVATE schools.  Most churches don't have the building space to have
a school.  Look in the Yellow Pages if you don't believe me - that's what
I did the last time you made this claim.

Of the churches that DO have schools, many of the students have parents
who don't attend that church.  My Episcopal wife has never given a dime to
the Catholic school she attended.  My Episcopal children (T-minus 4 months
and counting ...) will probably attend Catholic school with said Catholic
Church also not getting a dime in the collection plate.  This happens all
the time - I even know Jews who went to Catholic schools.  Certainly if
"collection plate opportunity" where the driving force, you'd think
"Christian" schools would at least restrict attendance to Christians ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Football Failures at Bowie Force end of Season
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:57:14 GMT

In <4709@d75.UUCP> curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072) writes:

>       =====  GOAL THREE:  CORE COURSE PROFICIENCY  =====

>*2   TEXAS FOOTBALL TEAM:  UNABLE TO PASS, PLAY
>     The Bowie, Texas, H.S., ninth-grade football team will be
>unable to finish its season for the second straight year because
>20 of its 26 members have been declared ineligible to play
>(Knight, EL PASO TIMES).  The players failed at least one of
>their classes in the first six-week grading period.
>     The "controversial" no-pass, no-play rule was created by
>presidential candidate Ross Perot in the mid-80s when he led the
>Texas education reform effort.  According to the rule, students
>are unable to participate in any "extra-curricular activities
>such as athletics, band and debate" if they fail one or more of
>their classes.

I was honestly stunned when they put 'no pass, no play' in effect down
here in Texas.  Not because I thought it was particularly
controversial, but because I couldn't believe that the schools weren't
being run that way all along.  People have since told me that a lot of
other states allow athletics, etc., no matter what a students academic
standing.  Incredible!  When did all this change?  When I was in
school, you had to not only not have flunked any courses, but you had
to maintain a cumulative C average.

>     "I am not a proponent of no-pass, no-play ... I believe it
>is imperative we emphasize academics, athletics, activities --
>the three A's.  They are all juxtaposition, side by side," said
>Bowie Principal Paul Strelzin (10/9).

Now this sounds like a man who needs to find a different line of work.
Perhaps he should open Club Med schools or something?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:58:12 GMT

>In article <1992Oct13.220814.42700@watson.ibm.com>, johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>> I'm sure there is a big element of self-protection in the AMA, but you
>> have to give them some credit for intellectual honesty.  If homeopathy
>> is effective, it has yet to be proven.  Mumbo-jumboness isn't carved
>> in stone for all time.  If an idea has merit, it will be proven
>> eventually.

In article <1992Oct14.083315.16845@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>	That may not actually be true.  Since part of homeopathy involves
...
>	Several trace elements are required and used by the human body.
>Just because there isn't a "Recommended Daily Allowance" doesn't mean it
>isn't effective.  I certainly doubt it will cure some disease, but probably
>has a noticable effect on someone with a vitamin (or related) deficiency.
>Something an M.D. may not pick up.

This may all be true, but last time I checked, homeopathy involved
administering phenomenally small amounts of these 'trace elements';
i.e.  on the order of a few parts per billion by volume. M.D.s have
picked up on the fact that these concentrations are considerably lower
than those normally encountered in everyday foods. So low, in fact,
that they may very well be useless.

I don't think anyone is trying to slam herbal/natural medicine. The
point is, do you want your government and pharmaceutical companies
spending their $$ and using specialized labor investigating
homeopathy?

-- 
#      Rick Russell | TAMU Meteorology | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu       # 
#     "I want to Krazy Glue my head to the bottom of a BIIIG           #
#      steel girder!" - Weird Al Yankovic                              #
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 15:20:47 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX

In article <1519@airgun.wg.waii.com>, miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:
|> There's nothing wrong with that, although the kids are certainly no 
|> more "captive" than they are in a secular school. No one is holding a 
|> gun to their heads or their parents' heads. The parents know they are 
|> sending their kids to a Christian school.

Well there's really two different issues here.  I don't care what
consenting people teach to each other, I just think that they should pay
for it themselves.  The Texas constitution is quite clear about
prohibiting sectarian schools from receiving any public education money.

The other issue is teaching superstitious mumbo-jumbo to children before
they've had a chance to develop their bullshit detectors.  I think it's
immoral to lay that mind-trip on them.  You can teach your children
whatever you want, but I think publicly-funded schools should be 
restricted to teaching factual information.

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
                "Fight the real enemy" -- Sinead O'Connor
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: z_totahmc@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Questions
Date: 13 Oct 92 10:35:51 CST
Summary: Questions
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

I am cuurently trying to develop a questinnaire to discover the Image of
Congress by Nacogdoches High School Gooverment students.  Anybody have
any suggestions for questions?

z_totahmc@cccsvax.sfasu.edu
From: lrk@k5qwb.lonestar.org (Mr. Lyn R. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Worker Productivity
Date: 11 Oct 92 16:50:22 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Radio Amateur k5qwb

reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com (Michael Reed) writes:

> In article <21673@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haug
> |> Nope, it's not just my musings.  American workers are #1 in per worker
> 
> One surprise is Germany's low ranking.  The six weeks vacation that
> every employee in Germany is mandated by law might have something to
> do with that.  It just shows you that worker productivity and economic
> success and necessarily correlated.

Germany and The Netherlands have 37.5 hour weeks too. The reason for 
the shortened hours was to give business and industry an incentive to 
solve the unemployment problems or face even shorter work weeks.

Germany's got even more idiot regulations than California which may 
also account for some of the low productivity.

I talked to a guy on a train in Germany who's company does software for 
the meat industry. Outside Germany, he calls the sites thru a 
foreign-excange line he has into Switzerland and updates/maintains the 
software. Inside Germany he has to send a person with floppy disks 
because of the idiot telephone regulations. He was complaining about 
productivity too.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 
73,            internet     | lrk@k5qwb.lonestar.org
Lyn Kennedy    packet radio | K5QWB @ N5LDD.#NTX.TX.US.NA
               pony express | P.O. Box 5133, Ovilla, TX, USA 75154

-------------- "We have met the enemy and he is us."  Pogo --------------
From: dsterner@unkaphaed.UUCP (Don Sterner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Perot TV Appearances
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 16:16:29 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy

The following TV appearances are scheduled.  Each has been
verified with the appropriate Houston TV station:

 Thursday 10/15 8:00pmCDT Major nets  Presidential Debates
 Friday   10/16 9:30pmCDT NBC/CSPAN   New Perot Spot - 30 minutes
 Saturday 10/17 7:00pmCDT ABC/CSPAN   New Perot Spot - 1 hour

A third presidential debate is scheduled for Monday, 10/19 at 6pmCDT.

Vote for your choice, but be informed!

--
dsterner@unkaphaed.UUCP (Don Sterner)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, (713) 943-2728 in Houston, Texas
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:56:02 GMT

In <1513@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:

>In article <1992Oct05.181223.22581@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>
>>81% of the private schools in this country are run by churches. 
>>Churches get government subsidies galore through tax exemptions.  If
>>they expect to get MORE taxpayer money, they should lose their tax
>>exemptions and pay income tax as well.
>>
>While I don't think private schools should receive government money, I would like to say that
>a tax exemption is not exactly the same thing as a subsidy. With a tax exemption, you get to 
>keep $X. With a subsidy, you might pay $X in taxes and receive $Y in subsidies, where Y could be
>more or less than X. 

It's still an advantage being funded by potential tax dollars.  You
can CALL it a birthday gift, but when someone is given a tax
advantage, that is a de facto subsidy.

>Also, churches are not-for-profit organizations, so income tax does
not apply to them.

Partly true.  However, I am a not-for-profit organization, yet I pay
income taxes.  If I was a church I wouldn't have to.  There is a
difference there.  You have to meet certain criteria in order to be
'not-for-profit' under the tax code; one of the ways to qualify is to
be a church.

>They are tax-exempt because they don't use much in the way of
government services.

Sorry, but that's simply not true.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:50:42 GMT

In article <21714@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> No, it is true.
> 
> As for "selling at cost", the Japanese government regularly investigates
> Japanese companies for selling in the US for LESS than they sell in Japan.
 
The Japanese market is a lot more complicated than the US market.  For one
thing, they have a distribution system that tends to keep costs higher
than they would be if they didn't have such a system.  That doesn't mean
there still isn't a lot of competition within that system.  
 
As an example, you could have two countries.  One adds a 10% VAT, the
other doesn't have any taxes on products.  It's very likely that the
country with the 10% VAT charge will have higher price levels, but it
doesn't mean that there isn't lots of competition between firms in that
market. 
 
The best example of this is the fact that many of the major Japanese
companies have only been around for a few decades.  If the system was so
closed and non-competitive, this wouldn't happen.  
 
> Japan is currently in a recession.  Are we?
 
Technically no, but given the pallor of our economy, we might as well be.
I find it hard to believe that someone actually thinks the Japanese growth
spurt is over for the most part.  Who do you think has hooked into the
emerging powers of the 21st century?  Countries like Indonesia, Korea,
Taiwan, maybe even China?  Japan.  They are very carefully building
infastructure in these emerging nations, and when they take off, Japan
will be with them. By contrast, the US waits until a country takes off and
then asks to get in the game.  It's too late then.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:26:07 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <21688@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <1992Oct07.235351.42551@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>In article <21680@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>|> Most private schools are NOT associated with churches.  Most of them are
>>|> just PRIVATE schools.
>>
>>Number of private schools grades K-12, 1987-88
>>[source: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of
>>         Education]
>>
>>Number of schools (total): 26,836
>>Catholic:                   9,527
>>Other religious:           12,132
>>Non-sectarian:              5,177 
> 
> Religious and associated with a church are NOT the same thing.  A school
> does not get a tax deduction simply because it has "Episcopal" or "St.
> Andrew" in the name.

	That may be true, but unless you have other sources that refute 
his numbers, then you are just blowing smoke and refuting by denial.  Quote
your sources, since you always demand that of others.

>>|> Of the churches that DO have schools, many of the students have parents
>>|> who don't attend that church.  My Episcopal wife has never given a dime to
>>|> the Catholic school she attended.
>>
>>Free tuition?
> 
> Not in the collection plate she hasn't.  That was your remark - that being
> a church funded school was a great way to indoctrinate future collection
> plate givers.

	So the case of your wife invalidates his entire argument?  I don't
think so...  Obviously enough students go on to become "plate givers",
otherwise the Catholic church would go bankrupt.  Your wife is the exception,
not the rule.  Since they are not bankrupt, it would seem that they have
sucessfully indoctrinated at least an adequate number of "plate givers".
I will agree that may not be the major purpose, but it is a nice side effect.

> -- 
> John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
> Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
From: dsterner@unkaphaed.UUCP (Don Sterner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: How about reaction to Perot's first TV show?
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 12:01:34 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy

wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:

> Well, I watched H. Ross on his first 'paid' TV show last night, and I

Perot has complained for months that the other candidates won't talk 
issues. That show is what he perceives to the the RIGHT way to approach 
the public in asking for their vote - He thinks that he has isolated the 
important issues, created proposed solutions for the problems, and is 
ready to recommend to the public that they support him based upon those 
facts and his background in business. And THAT has been outstanding. 
 
There was no attmept in the first show to discuss all of the issues - he 
tried to cover the high points to demonstrate the problems our country 
faces, the extent of those problems, and the importance of facing the 
issues NOW. Later shows will cover more specifics about how, etc. He did 
not avoid any issues, in my opinion.

I suggest that you read Ross' book to get more insight about his plan - 
or you can wait until later advertisements. I believe the book provides 
more insight than can be delivered in 30 minutes.

For what it's worth, I understand that the first show was the second-most 
watched show in Houston - ever. Numerous calls to TV stations and to 
Perot for President offices across the country have requested that it be 
repeated - look for it Friday evening. 
 
Regardless of your political leanings, the information Perot presents 
should be VERY important to Americans. These are REAL issues that MUST be 
dealt with.
 
Now, to show my bias, I'd like to remind you that the constitution 
requires both the president and congress to cooperate in matters 
affecting spending and legislation (except in the rare case of a 
veto)..... It took cooperation from both Democrats and Republicans to get 
us into this situation. Claims from either one that the other is to blame 
are pure, unadulterated bs!

--
dsterner@unkaphaed.UUCP (Don Sterner)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, (713) 943-2728 in Houston, Texas
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 16:17:58 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX

In article <1527@airgun.wg.waii.com>, miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:
|> John, Christianity is not a superstition. Jesus did walk the earth.
|> The question is: Do you believe that He is your savior? 

No I don't (obviously).

|>                                   First of all, let's exclude non-
|> religious private schools from our discussion. I think we both agree 
|> that they should not receive public funds.

Actually we don't.  I think vouchers are conceptually a good idea.  But I
think the only way they would work is to get the government completely
out of the education business, and abolish the public school system.  The
problem, as I see it, with privatizing the school system is that unless
it is self-supporting, you have to make sure the system is accountable to 
the public.  If you're dumping public money into the system, it should
not be completely exempt from government control.  Now the question is,
how much (and how little) control is appropriate?

|> Now, on to the religious 
|> ones.  I don't think that a school run by a church receives public 
|> funds just because the church is tax-exempt. The school is not a 
|> business. No one profits monetarily from it.

A private school is most certainly a business, and the church most
certainly profits from it, and most certainly doesn't pay taxes on that
profit.

|> This makes me wonder how fair it is to those parents of children who 
|> are in private schools who still have to pay education tax.
|> 
|> Or to those who have no children.

The standard argument is that an educated populace benefits everybody. 
This argument has some merit, but then I could make the same argument
about a fed populace or a healthy populace.  You end up having to make a
value-judgement as a society about how to best use your limited resources.

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
                "Fight the real enemy" -- Sinead O'Connor
Newsgroups: tx.politics