HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dleon@seas.smu.edu (David Leon)
Subject: Re: Teachers
Organization: School of Engineering and applied science; S.M.U.; Dallas, Tx
Distribution: tx
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 17:10:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.165945.936@digi.lonestar.org> ldillard@digi.lonestar.org (Lawrenece Dillard) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.150054.6072@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>> recently heard that the ratio of administrative personel to total
>>school system employees nationwide has increased from 15% to 30% in the
>>last 30 years in this country.  I don't remember where I read that,
>>maybe "The Economist".  That's where real change is needed.  Fire those
>>morons.  Make 'em get a real job.
>
>I read an article last year about some report comparing the NYC public schools
>to their closest private counterpart, the Parochial school system.  The study
>was done by someone in administration of the public school, so they had 
>access to the figures.  Anyway, the study showed a vast difference in where
>the $$ was spent.  Especially conspicuous was the large numbers of admin
>people in public vs. the small number in the private.

Judging from what I've seen here, it would follow that if the private school
were significantly smaller than its public counterpart, the administration
costs should be significantly reduced. (ie it costs less money per student
to administer a public school with 4,000 and 100 teachers than a private
school with 500 students and 20 teachers--the overhead changes)  This was
the main argument in where a GISD school district wished to split into
two different schools in order to increase efficient use of $ (cut overhead,
bump the student/teacher ratio, etc)

>
>I do not know if I can find this article again.  Hopefully someone can fill
>in the details.  I think the study was part of the author's doctrinal thesis,
>or something along those lines.

Sounds like a very interesting topic to me!
>
>-Tom
David L. Leon
dleon@seas.smu.edu
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:02:10 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Aug30.231633.25008@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>I could just as well argue that the press always goes out of it's way
>to report on police violence, and therefore if there had been any violence
>against OR it would be reported in the media.

Actually you make my argument for me.  The police violence against OR
is very well covered in the media.  Every time the police bust up a OR
protest, the cameras are there showing OR people being drug away.  And
the magazine articles detailing various suits against police departments
thoroughly document the alledged abuses.

You are putting me in the very uncomfortable position of defending an
organization that I despise.  However, I will note that this same
tactic (of accusing non-violent protestors of all manner of crimes) is
quite old.  It was tried (unsuccessfully) against King with the same
results - pictures of King's followers being beaten by riot police
and hosed down with fire hoses DID make the news.  King was accused
of being a communist and a revolutionary terrorist after a fashion.
Yet I am unaware of any criminal charges that were ever tossed in his
direction (and I mean the serious ones, not "disturbing the peace" or
trumpted up charges of "inciting a riot") actually sticking.

Now, if some upity nigger can have the offenses against him documented
by a white-male dominated press, surely the favorite sons of the
pro-abortion press can have crimes against them documented as well ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4805 alt.politics.clinton:4029
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:22:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX

In article <1992Sep2.205150.3382@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
> Pardon my ignorance, but how does the growth of the 80's cause the 
> current recession unless you are saying that we morgaged our future
> in the 80's. In that case I agree with you.
 
If the economy's production outstrips the ability of the economy to
consume, the production side of the economy will eventually have to
"slow down" in order for the consumption side to catch up.  This
results in unemployment.  If the consumption side outstrips the
production side, prices rise and inflation results.

There are ways to fiddle with both unemployment and inflation, but
this is the simplified version.

> >This current down-turn was successfully predicted over 90 years ago.
> 
> Do they say when we will come out of the down-turn?
 
1995.

>  The only problem with George Bush is that he
> >isn't Ronald Reagan.
> 
> And your saying that this is bad? Right?

That's correct.  The economic growth of the '80s was caused by Ronald
Reagan.  If you would look at the FACTS surrounding the Reagan
administration, instead of the propaganda, you'd see that he created
incredible wealth across all spectrums of American society.  The rich
=did= get richer, and so did the poor, the middle class, blacks,
immigrants, etc.

>   What we need MOST at this time is a president that
> >isn't going to set us up for a serious roller-coaster ride in 10 years by
> >pumping Federal deficit dollars into the national economy.
> > 
> Like FDR did when he successfully reduced unemployment.

The Great Depression of the '30s was only exited by the Second World
War.  In many ways, the '90s will be the decade when we FINALLY pay for
FDR's socialist programs.  The period after WWII was filled with either
major conflicts, such as Korea and Vietnam, which mandated a large
military-industrial complex, or the simmering Cold War with the former
USSR.  Now that we have an excellent Defense Department, courtesy of
Ronald Reagan, we have a greatly reduced need for new weapons.  And thus
the economy must begin to depend on a real peacetime economy, for the
first time since the late '20s.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
From: evan@is.rice.edu (Evan R. Wetstone)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 31 Aug 1992 19:47:50 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <G-cBr*sV0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <1685314B1.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, Joseph L. Lockett writes:
>
>> >>An example -- Jewish religious law REQUIRES an abortion in cases where
>
>Note:  Rabbinical lore is NOT the Bible.

This is not Rabbinical lore.  It *is* Jewish religious Law. 

>
>                                                Jim Pritchett
>
>
>UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
> or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp


-- 
Evan Wetstone			
Network Support		Speaking for myself, and no one else
Rice University
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4599 alt.politics.clinton:3472
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 06:31:09 GMT
 <1992Aug25.033348.26856@pony.Ingres.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug25.033348.26856@pony.Ingres.COM>, QUOTE OF THE YEAR writes:

> I just noticed something. This whole election the Republicans have blamed
> Congress for the deficit and the recession, Bush was just along for the 
> ride. During the 80's, the growth we had was caused by Reagan. Why doesn't
> Congress get credit for that? After all, if someone is going to flack

Probably because Reagan dragged the liberals (kicking and screaming) all the
way to the tax cuts.  The tax cuts are what made the economy boom.

> for when things go bad, why don't they get credit for when things go good?
> I'm interested in hearing what the conservatives have to say about that.

Why give credit to the liberal Democrats for something that they opposed?


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:54:00 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep2.190955.13842@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Squirming Fred) writes:
>>In article <21435@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>>I am imitating the style of Fred J. McCall.  He likes to throw style
>>>and grammar flames in for the fun of it.
>>>The "and that isn't a complete sentence" is a direct quote from an
>>>earlier article of his.
>
>Why, Joe, he 'does that' because he got caught using his normal style
>and needed an excuse.  So he took the opportunity to take a(nother)
>cheap shot.

No, Fred, once again you've been caught lying.  Here is the quote from
the article I am mocking.

->In article <1992Aug26.162649.4866@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Squirming Fred) writes:
->>Then you are a dishonest man (and a lousy grammarian -- that's not
->>even a sentence).

I'll give you a clue - I keep a LOT of old netnews.

I must admit that I thought he said "complete" sentence.  Now that I
look at what he actually wrote, well, you can see what he actually
wrote ...

So, what is the score?  Fred 0, everyone else 10?  I was keeping a
scorecard, you remember - the Drycleaning Index (Fred lost), the Grocery
Basket Index (Fred lost), the Gasoline Index (Fred lost), the LA Riot
Damaged Business Index (Fred lost), etc.  Add to this the NetNews Grammar
Fascist Award (Fred lost), and he's got quite a streak going.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: George v. Congress
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:51:50 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <idEAr*sU0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>
>assault weapons.  You really ought to stop listening to the Clinton propaganda
>machine and find out the facts.
>
>
>                                                Jim Pritchett
>
>
	Jim, the same could be said to you about the "Bush machine" 
	and its propaganda; just depends on whose you believe. I
        prefer to believe the one who hasn't already been caught in lies.

        neener neener.

		Bye, Judy.  

		Remember, virtue is its own punishment.
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Republican Candidates
Date: 29 Aug 92 06:20:52 GMT
 <WC+yr*iS0@caleb.UUCP> <1992Aug24.194928.29699@technology.com>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug24.194928.29699@technology.com>, Richard Murphy writes:

> In article <WC+yr*iS0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug21.185303.19659@technology.com>, Judy McMillin writes:
> >
> >> How can the man who singlehandedly whipped the evil empire into submission,
> >> making the world safe for all, stand there in front of God and everyone and
> >> tell us he can't handle the guys in his own Congress?  
> >
> >He simply did not have enough votes to overcome the Liberal Democrats who
> >controlled Congress.  -- or are you suggesting that he should have sent the
> >military in to control Congress?
> >
> >
> As usual, Jim, you've swallowed this one hook, line,and sinker. Several
> articles I've read over the weekend point out that there is NO correlation
> between the amount of legislation passed and the the fact that the
> President and Congress are from different parties. Latest examples are
> Nixon and Reagan....

I wasn't referring to the amount of legislation passed.  Bush and Reagan could
sign LOTS of legislation as long as they signed what the Democrats passed.  Your
point is irrelevant.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Subject: Re: Condom Discussion
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:12:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.133703.1395@crd.ge.com> doel@crd.ge.com writes:
>I said that, and have grown to regret it.  The words which best express
>my intent are "passing out condoms encourages sexual activity." 
>I still stand by that though I haven't had time to run to the library
>to look up stats to back me up.

I would humbly suggest exactly the opposite of your contention. As far
as I've been able to tell, "sexual activity encourages condom
distribution".  You can distribute all the condoms you want; if people
don't want to use them, then they won't. If you don't distribute
condoms, then they will go elsewhere for contraceptive needs or avoid
contraception entirely.

As a side note, the NY school system, which started this whole flap,
does *not* pass out condoms, as everyone mistakenly presumes. Condoms
are available by *request* from the school nurse. Hence, those who do
not want or need condoms do not get them, and are hence not encouraged
to any sexual activity.

At least that's what they said on _Geraldo_ :-)

>Mike Doel				<doel@crd.ge.com>

-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
# "Snow Goons are bad news." - Calvin  |                                    #
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4627 houston.general:956
From: system@korova.uucp (razorback)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,houston.general,rice.politics
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 19:55:50 CDT
Organization: VHF void tube of the mind (713) 492-2783

reed@owlnet.rice.edu (Kevin Niles Reed) writes:
> Hypothesis:  Abortions will prevent unwanted children thereby preventing
> the misery of those children.
> 
> Were this Hypothesis true, why are children still suffering despite that
> Abortion has been legal for many years?  Sorry, I don't accept that 
> arguement.
because many people who have children know nothing of how to give them 
what they need.

in short, many people that have kids are unfit to care for them

squid

--
              VHF void tube of the mind (713) 492-2783
        "where you can find the Zeta Greys SAFEWAYING themselves
                into the WONDERBREAD *heart* of America!"
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Condom Discussion
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 22:22:37 GMT

In <1992Aug26.133703.1395@crd.ge.com> doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.173352.3184@technology.com>, judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>> Someone said:  "Passing out condoms encourages their use."
>> 	What's wrong with that?
>I said that, and have grown to regret it.  The words which best express
>my intent are "passing out condoms encourages sexual activity." 
>I still stand by that though I haven't had time to run to the library
>to look up stats to back me up.

It is possible (even likely) that passing out condoms encourages sexual
activity.  However, not passing out condoms does not prevent sexual activity,
and I'm willing to bet that passing out condoms creates a net drop in
the number sexual "problems" that are created by sexual activity.  Things
like VD, Pregnancy, what have you.

Unless not passing out condoms stopped sexual activity, or unless passing
them out had 0 impact on the possible ill-effects of sexual activity, I'd
say passing them out was the better choice.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
                     Life's a sham and every move is wrong
                  We've examined every move as we move along.
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: iraq vanquished
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:49:46 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <4651@d75.UUCP> curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072) writes:
>Where is Carl Sagan now?  Where is the global catastrophy?

Uh, the global catastrophy is right here, right now.  It's called the
coolest summer in recent history - a 1 degree decline in global
temperatures, which has offset the .45 degree increase of the last 100
years or so.

It was not caused by oil fires in Kuwait.  It was caused by the same
thing that has given us the last year or more of beautiful red sunsets.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: dleon@seas.smu.edu (David Leon)
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Organization: School of Engineering and applied science; S.M.U.; Dallas, Tx
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:30:14 GMT

I remember seeing a film similar to Silent Scream while in high school. I 
think we saw Screaming Fetus.  From what I recollect, a fetus aborted at
P
the beginning of the second trimester did open its mouth when the vacuum
was inserted.  It was unclear when the fetus died (ie did the fetus's mouth
open as a result of pain, as the movie suggested, or did the mouth open
as a result from vacuum pressure). 

Something to note: if Pro-Lifers are so worried about the sensation of pain
that the fetus allegedly feels, why are they (Pro-Lifers) so adamant about
banning orally induced abortions (RU486 and Morning After)?  If the Pro-
Lifers truly stood by their stance that abortion is wrong because it is
torturous, and the other method of abortion (oral) is not torturous, why are
they trying so hard to keep RU486 out of this country?

David L. Leon
dleon@seas.smu.edu


16
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice C
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:30:32 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

dirk@spacsun.rice.edu (Dirk Valk) writes:

> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
> > My point was that her philosophy still has had significant affect upon the
> > direction of Planned Parent hood even to this day.  
> 
> Excuse me, but how exactly does a 'philosophy of hate for the poor'
> translate into a directed effort to provide cheap, available birth control,
> gynecological services, and free HIV testing?  Not to mention sexual educatio
> Are you really suggesting that Planned Parenthood exists to carry out some
> sort of economic genocide?  Get a grip.

I've quoted sources showing under what philosophy Sanger organized Planned
Parenthood.  It's in your ballpark to refute it. A "philosophy of hate for
the poor" translates exactly into 'providing services' targeted to the poor
with the intent of causing those people to limit their progeny.  "Get a
grip."

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
From: troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:51:27 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Aug31.163031.22154@technology.com>
judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
 
>   Wow, Jim.  And the Bible is not, NEVER has been, nor EVER WILL BE the
>   guiding law of this country.
 
        No,  actually it  *was*.   But it was administered well.
You still had the freedom to not be a Christian  (or a Jew)  or even
to reject it outright w/o being burned as a heretic.   It worked.
But that was a time when the Fed wasn't micro-managing things.
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 23:01:39 CDT
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:

> 
> The OR leaders said "We answer to a higher law" nine of them now answer
> to Judge O'Neils law and the laws of this country, if you don't want a 
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> abortion don't get one, WOW wasn't that simple !!. 
> 
  Perhaps those on both sides of this issue should take a closer 
look at this and think about what this "Judge" (?) has actually 
done. While I hardly support OR and it's tactics, if you look at 
O'Neil's order, anyone concerned with Constitutional rights should 
be outraged! Your statement rings truer than you may have 
intended, since the order constitutes a "law" according to O'Neil 
and not according to the Constitution. 

  "O'Neil's law" has several serious flaws, it's wording is far 
too broad, it has jailed and fined people who have violated no 
law, and it allows the lawyers for Planned Parenthood to decide 
who is to be jailed and fined. In all the cases so far, the 
persons jailed were, at the time of their arrest, doing nothing 
but standing (or kneeling) on a public sidewalk. They were NOT 
attempting to block any enterence or doing anything else (at that 
time) that was illegal.

  Compare that to the court order issued by a Judge in New York 
during the Democratic Convention. That order also provided for 
jail and fines for those who violated it, but in order to violate 
that court order, they had to actually commit some act (in most 
cases an illegal act) such as attempting to block an enterence. 
What that order did (properly so) was to increase the penality for 
certain violations routinely committed by members of OR. It also 
did not allow for the PP lawyers to choose who the order was to be 
applied to.

  Even the PP lawyers here admited that they "asked for the moon, 
but never really expected to get it." No matter what you feel 
about the abortion issue, if you are concerned with a "judge"
trampling on the constitutional rights of citizens, you should be 
concerned about this one!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Exculpatory, a nifty little word that meant confuse
           the hell out of the jurors. -- Stephen Coonts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------