HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim Best)
Subject: This lady wants vouchers
Organization: Systems'n'Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 20:31:29 GMT

                         FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
                                 10/08/92

                    BOY, 10 CAN'T READ MOM SUES SCHOOL
                    ==================================

SANTA ANA -- The mother of a 10-year-old boy who made it to the fifth grade
without being able to read or write filed lawsuit seeking to close her sons's
school down.

Lourdes Gutterrez of Santa Ana maintains that her son. Roberto, suffered
humiliation among his classmates because educators at Glenn Martin
Elementary School didn't teach him properly.

Her lawsuit, filed last week, asks that the school be closed and that the
money used to operate it be given to students in the form of vouchers to
pay for private school education. It names the Santa Ana Unified School
District as defendant.

District officials declined comment on the class action suit filed in
Orange County Superior Court.

Roberto Gutierrez's  first language is Spanish. Guttierrz said she decided
not to enroll him in a bilingual education program because she wanted him
to learn English.

"I have no idea how they kept passing him at each grade level," said
Gutierrez's lawyer, Emir Phillips.

When Roberto was in the second grade, a teacher quelled Gutierrez's
suspicions that he was illiterate by saying he was "only a little slow and
not to worry about it," Phillip said.

Gutierrez contends that school officials never mentioned her son's
inability to read or write, only that he was a "good child" who needed
practice with his alphabet.

"Many times, at Glenn Martin, Roberto's homework was never looked at or
graded," the suit alleges.
___________________________________________________________________________
                                   \ /        \  /
I had a seat in the very first row +-------------+ 
I heard it all on my radio         | 0 -(....) 0 |    uunet!jack!jsb
                                   +-------------+                         
___________________________________________________________________________


From: roger@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Roger Petersen)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:51:06 GMT
Subject: Re: FACTS on Candidates Economic Plans!
Organization: MID, Home of the Happy Dinosaurs
Newsgroups: ca.politics


| Budget Balancing Plans
| ----------------------
| 
| Perot:
|    Proposes elimination of the deficit AND THE DEBT by 1997,
|    through increased taxes and reduced government spending.
|    See Perot's book "United We Stand" ($5) for details.

Actually, Perot's plan is to eliminate the deficit by 1997,
and have a small budget surplus ($10 billion?).  That surplus
could be used to start paying off the $4 trillion debt.

(Obviously you can't re-pay a $4 trillion debt in 5 years
unless you eliminate all government spending ($1.5 trillion/yr)
and keep all government income ($1.1 trillion/yr).)


Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Subject: Re: Re-elect Bush
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:23:42 GMT

In article <92288.51063.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, 
J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:

>>Preventing the "October Surprise" was not just naughty.
>>It was a Coup.
>What are you trying to say?  And do you have any proof other than the unsworn
>statements of a dead person?  Neither did Gore in the debate yesterday.

>>Bush was "out of the loop" on the economy, the environment, education, health s
>>the savings & loan disaster.
>It's easy to prosecute someone without the actual evidence, isn't it?  More
>statements from dead people?

As a matter of fact, yes.  George Bush may be beyond legal prosecution for his
role (or lack of role) in these things, but certainly we can assign Bill Casey's
words some weight in making our voting decisions, regardless of his current
state of metabolism. (He ain't dead, just metabolically challenged...) 

>>The Republicans are evil.

>David Duke is evil.  David Duke ran as a Republican (despite GOP protests).
>Therefore Republicans are evil.  You get an A+ in logic, buddy.

The man was stating an opinion....and one that has been hashed over so
often as to become a cliche. They used to make the same comparison between
Nixon and McGovern...

>Abe Lincoln freed the slaves.  Abe Lincoln was a Republican.  Therefore Lincoln
>was evil.  Yeah, right.

The party of Lincoln and of T.R. is quite different from the modern Republican
Party. I see the history of the GOP as being in four distinct periods:

1) Lincoln -> Taft
2) Harding -> Hoover
3) Ike -> Ford
4) Reagan -> Present

>>The Choice is yours.
>Yes, and I choose Andre Marrou.

Good. An Excellent choice. I have nothing but respect for the man. 

JZ

Xref: sparky ca.politics:8590 ba.politics:6007
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:33:10 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <39488@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:
> In article <12725@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #If the schools started teaching that homosexuality was a form of
# #subhuman behavior that justified murder, you would be tremendously
# #upset about it.  (So would I, for that matter).
# #
# #So, should the schools reflect the concerns of parents, or teach
# #something this repulsive?
# 
# Clayton, would you mind leaving this particular topic unsullied by
# your hangups on homosexuality? Thanks!
# 
# You are posting a straw man argument here. Please post something
# relevant to the discussion at hand.
# 
# Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering

It's not at all a strawman.  It's an example of something that
would piss off the left as much as some of the crap currently
talk in public schools upsets Christians.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:15:26 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <athos-091092150531@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>Fine, you're a moron.  I do, after all, call them as I see them.  The term
>"Nazi" is a VERY hostile word.  

In point of fact Ricky, while I may have referred to Herschensohn
as a Nazi in the past (I don't recall), in this particular exchange
YOU were the one who brought up the term. My preferred term is
"fascist", for which I make no apology when referring to Herschensohn.
I may also refer to him as "Herr" for the same reasons.

Now, you may go back to playing with your Tinkertoys.

-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: FACTS on Candidates Economic Plans!
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:34:51 GMT

In article <4550007@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com> roger@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Roger Petersen) writes:
>Actually, Perot's plan is to eliminate the deficit by 1997,
>and have a small budget surplus ($10 billion?).  That surplus
>could be used to start paying off the $4 trillion debt.
>

Actually, if we can just get the deficit down to tolerable levels,
inflation will pay off the debt for us.  At the relatively low
inflation rate of 3%, a $4 trillion debt will shrink by
$120 billion per year (in real terms).  So, if we can just get
the deficit down to $100 billion or so, we will start to see a
shrinkage in the value of the debt.  I don't think that it is
neccesary (or even desireable) to pay off the national debt.  But,
we need to stop the flood of red-ink before it drowns us.

Guido
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:03:23 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <1992Oct7.013340.27276@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
>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? 

Rick already knows this to be fact. He and Bruce aren't going to be happy
until the teacher is leading the class in an "authorized" prayer. The
only acceptable prayer is a noisy prayer, where everyone else in the
room knows you are talking to god, right Rick?

This most certainly ISN'T all that Bruce is saying.










-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:46:50 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Oct9.231613.29232@pb2esac.uucp>, jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:
> In article <39223@sdcc12.ucsd.edu+ jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:
> +In article <12673@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# +#It was December.  My daughter was in first grade.  They were singing
# +#various Christmas songs (secular variety).  My daughter, foolishly,
# +#suggested singing "Silent Night."  The teacher's response was, "We
# +#can't do that.  That would be illegal."  Does that make you a little
# +#uncomfortable?  Sort of like, "Can we discuss evolution?"  "No, that
# +#would be illegal."
# +
# +Not one little bit Cramer. Songs of the sort of "Silent Night" are blatently
# +religious, and belong in other venues.
# +
# +Evolution, on the other hand, is science, whatever the religious morons
# +who try to equate it to creationism might want to believe, and it does
# +belong in the schools.
# 
# Michael, Michael... haven't you been paying attention here?  What should
# be taught as "truth" in the schools is merely what the kid's parents
# believe!
# 
# ;-)

If the schools started teaching that homosexuality was a form of
subhuman behavior that justified murder, you would be tremendously
upset about it.  (So would I, for that matter).

So, should the schools reflect the concerns of parents, or teach
something this repulsive?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:37:40 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Oct14.183207.15844@gordian.com>, mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> In article <12723@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> > In article <39223@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:
# # # Evolution, on the other hand, is science, whatever the religious morons
# # # who try to equate it to creationism might want to believe, and it does
# # # belong in the schools.
# # 
# # "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
# # or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"  What does that last 
# # phrase tell you?
# 
#   That education should be privatized. Trying to to make a right or

It would certainly solve the problem.  But since liberals are intent
on imposing their will on others, and prohibiting diversity, what
do we do in the mean time?

# wrong determination with the problem is futile: it is based on a 
# faulty premise. If you had any self respect Clayton, you would limit
# your arguments to that point and that point alone.
# -- 
# 		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)

What is the faulty premise?  That we are stuck with public schools
for the forseeable future?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Subject: Re: Mortgage nightmare
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:24:01 GMT

In article <39119@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:

>I just went through a refinance, and it was one of the worst experiences
>of my life.
>[...]
>Anybody have any idea where I can make some noise at the government level?

Believe it or not, the industry is pretty well-regulated.  The problem
is that it's very open to unqualified people.  In other words, the
system allows malpractice to occur but will punish it.

How about a little more info before we start pointing you at
regulators?

-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8608 ba.politics:6022
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Remedial statistics
Date: 10 Oct 92 23:22:36 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb


Sigh.  Clayton, you are confusing definitions again, and muddying the
waters with NAMBLA again.  NAMBLA is irrelevant -- nobody I know is
likely to choose a NAMBLA spokesman to run a day-care center or Boy
Scout troop.

Try to break your results down by the following groups, based on
actual behavior (i.e., what we have a prayer of observing) and not
some Freudian mind-reading of people already known to molest children.

1. Men who have sex with men (and nobody else).
2. Men who have sex with women.
3. Men who have sex with men and women.
4. Men who have sex with nobody.

5. Men who have sex with men and boys.
6. Men who have sex with women and boys.
7. Men who have sex with men and women and boys.
8. Men who have sex with boys.

If, hypothetically speaking, you are choosing a Boy Scout troop
leader, you have already ruled out people known to be in groups 5-8,
homosexual or not.  Assuming that you are inclined to make these
distinctions, your next step is to decide, based on knowing that
someone is a member of 1+5 or 2+6 or 3+7 or 4+8 (you don't know for
sure whether this person is a child molestor or not) how likely it is
that that person is in fact a member of group 5, 6, 7 or 8
(respectively).

This does not seem to be what you are measuring -- you are measuring
the odds that someone is a member of 5+6+7+8 (i.e., a child molestor),
given that you already know someone is a member of 1+3+5+6+7+8 (a
"homosexual", using your definition).  Unfortunately, this mixes very
important information (someone is known to be a child molestor) with
very unimportant information (someone has sex with men).

I hope I'm not giving anyone the impression that this is the only
point to argue -- this just happens to be the point that I am most
capable of arguing.

David Chase
Sun
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8659 talk.politics.misc:51597
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:52:33 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <98301@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <12699@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #Mr. Kane has posted some numbers that, even leaving out monogamous
# #heterosexuals, and making obviously absurd assumptions about non-
# #monogamous heterosexuals remaining so, and at the same sexual
# #promiscuity level throughout their lifetimes, still show homosexual
# #men as at least twice as promiscuous as the non-monogamous homosexuals.
# 
# The assumptions aren't that absurd given recent divorce stats.

Guess what -- lots of divorced people get remarried.  (And many
of them get divorced again, because they haven't resolved the
problems that caused the first divorce).  I have known heterosexual
men who engaged in the sort of promiscuity that you talk about.
They have been extremely rare -- even in the late 1970s, they were
pretty remarkable cases.

# I realize this will be difficult to digest, especially since some of
# my interlocutors go under the assumption that sexual fidelity is the
# end-all of a good marriage.
# 
# While I remain monogamous at this point, I don't delude myself by believing
# that the day will never come when my partner and I might come to an agreement
# that we may entertain outside partners from time to time.

Thank you for shooting yourself in the foot.  My wife and certainly
engage in this "delusion."  That you are prepared to plan for this
eventuality shows your committment to monogamy.

# Brian


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:09:42 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <1992Oct11.175030.22125@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> 
> 3. The numbers are out of anything I am familar with. The most
>    promiscous men I know might have 2 or 3 different women a year.

Trust me, Phil, I know of heterosexual men who are quite a bit more pro-
miscuous than that.  Heck, I live with one.  At his worst, he was
sleeping with a different woman every week.  In the 3 years I've been
his roommate, I'd estimate the number of sexual partners at about 30.
I, on the other hand, am probably at the lower end of heterosexual un-
married men since I tend to average about 1 partner per year.

I'm not claiming he's typical--in fact, I'd be willing to bet he's on the
high end.  I'm just saying that it sounds like you know some pretty non-
promiscuous men.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:19:38 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <12723@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Yes, indeed, I'm not a liberal.  I believe in equal protection of
>the law.  The problem is that our schools are extremely tolerant
>of New Age religions being expressed and even encouraged, but 
>anything that smacks of Christianity is anethema, and prohibited
>(until the courts and Congress intervened).

Well, I'm not a bible-thumping conservative, but I'd bet that most would
scream bloody murder (including Pat Robertson et al.) if the "liberals"
allowed Satanists etc onto the school grounds. You know this as well
as I do.

># group is admitted, they all should be. I would insist that their use
># of school property is completely unabtrusive, however.

>Why?

So that there is no question of whether or not they are interfering with
the beliefs or the lack thereof of others trying to use the same facilities.

School is for learning, church is for bible-thumping. I will do whatever I can
to make sure they stay seperated.

-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Opinons on prop 167?
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:19:51 GMT

In article <22929@galaxy.ucr.edu>, judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:
> Are there any?
> I am inclined to vote no.  What would make me vote yes?
> --
> "I drank what?" -- Socrates

  Hemlock.
-- 

		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)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 18:16:06 GMT

In article <ldbuh9INNbk0@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>Well, do, or do not, male homosexuals on the average, have
    >>close to TWO orders of magnitude more sex partners than
    >>hetersexuals?
    >>
    >I don't know. If Clayton presented his most "scholarly" data,
    >then he doesn't really know either, though he thinks he may.
    >I don't really care. The point is that Clayton's statistics
    >are junk.
    >
    >>Do you NOT accept that many many people find this disgusting?
    >>
    >I don't know. I haven't conducted a proper poll. Neither have
    >you. Nor has Clayton, near as I can tell. Asking your friends
    >is not statistically sound.

You don't know. Thanks for your honesty.

I rely on the recent Newsweek magazine articles on homosexuality,
which include a nice set of polls on peoples attitudes on homosexuality.

But judging from the cries of discrimination from many homosexual
posters on the net, surely you assert that most people don't like
homoseuality?



-- 
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: ca.politics