HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: What DO they teach in kindergarten nowadays?
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:45:50 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <1992Dec23.110137.19406@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1h9309INNofi@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
>    >So can you document the opposite? Show us proof that this is
>    >one of the few (if not the first) time you ever have admitted
>    >to being wrong about something. You always document- with at
>    >least one source, that is not sufficient for many of the
>    >arguments you make.
>
>This is really a gem. OK, here is the proof of all the times, other
>than Maddi's recent little correcto-gasm, that I've been wrong:
>
>			  "  "
>
>I can't believe how stupid you are in public.
>
Phil, you are indeed a jerk, and one with an extremely short memory.  When I
had more time, I used to take special enjoyment in proving how wrong you 
were.  If I had more time, I could continue to pick you apart.  The last time
around was with your '5 for 5' post, in which I pointed out to you that you
weren't all that brilliant there, either.

You're still remarkably stupid and inconsistent.  Last year, you were knocking
Scientific American, this year I noted you using it as a reference source.

If you really were worth anything (you're not), I could spend a little time
berating you and your fears of PC, Nazis, and whatever your dark little mind
conjures up.

I don't need to, though...others here are doing a fine job.

Happy Holidays

George Lambert
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Subject: Re: Cable TV: Disorganized Crime, Was: Re: dangerous group
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 21:22:34 GMT

In article <13760@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
>
>What can you do about it?  For one, stop pretending that
>they are a monopoly.  There are many other sources of
>information.  Still want to watch the tube?  The antenna
>system that I put up in 1985 (antenna, rotator,mast, mast-
>mounted pre-amp, feedline, lightning arrestor, guy wires,
>etc.) cost no more than a year's worth of cable, and is
>still working fine.  I get all of the stations from S.F.,
>S.J., and Sacramento in my Santa Rosa home, it does not
>cost me a dime, and I don't have to deal with those cable
>system outages and contribute to RF leaking out through
>el-cheapo connectors all over the place.
>

OK.  Let me know when you figure out how to get AMC and other worthwhile
cable stations through the TV antenna.  I didn't get cable in order to save
going up on the roof.


-- 
John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
===============================================================
There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: Why Do We Have Separate Restrooms? (WAS Re: Gays, the military...)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 17:22:53 GMT
Organization: QueerNet

In article <1993Jan2.100213.293@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>No, no, no! I'm not talking about VOLUNTARY choices that people make, like
>selecting a coed dorm or going to a nudist camp. Right now, tonight, all
>bathrooms, showers, etc. are unisex.

There are colleges that have eliminated the one-sex dormitory option,
and have *only* co-ed dorms.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG              {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!sgiblab!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: brad@optilink.COM (Brad Yearwood)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: pressure those nasty Bay Area cable companies!
Date: 3 Jan 93 01:56:23 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <ubrtf2c@zola.esd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
> If cable companies were normal businesses, I'd agree with you.
> But in every place I've gotten cable service, the cable provider
> was a monopoly.  I couldn't punish one provider for bad service
> by going to another one.  A political solution is possibly the
> only one in this case.

Probably so, because a political problem typically underlies.  Most cities
grant exclusive franchise to one cable TV delivery operator.

Political pressure against your own city's granting or renewing exclusive
franchises might have some effect.

In newly developed areas, were not for rampant cheapness and paucity of
imagination on the part of real estate developers and builders, it wouldn't
be particularly difficult to lay down in advance the infrastructure to support
multiple competing delivery systems.  Independently owned or condominium trench,
conduit, and equipment sites, might be a worthwhile idea.  Assuming, of course,
that the politicians don't get in the way.  Cable TV people probably give very
good lunch.

Ultimately, if you think that the price or other terms of business of cable TV,
crack cocaine, or any other non-essential product are disagreeable, it's not
all that difficult to just say No.

[Disclaimer: I might have a direct economic interest in someone other than
cable companies delivering television service.  I probably spend more at
the local video rental store than I would for cable service, so what do
I know, except that I want a movie, and I want it to start at 11:10PM?]

Brad Yearwood   brad@optilink.com    {uunet, pyramid}!optilink!brad
Petaluma, CA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 06:14:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.212718.29965@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
    >>So let's make you happy with your trivia -- I was incorrect
    >>on the political affiliation.
    >>
    >It isn't trivia; it was an important part of your point and I
    >demolished it. You didn't acknowledge it until I and 3 others
    >called you on it. In the 2 years I've followed this group,
    >this is the *FIRST TIME* you have *EVER* admitted making
    >mistake. And you have made a lot of them. Usually, when you
    >called on the facts, you change the subject and bring up some
    >controversial flame-topic in hope no one notices you didn't
    >address the issue that you'll say anything, no matter how
    >false, to prove your point.

Why then, I'm sure that you will have NO problem documenting this, right?

In fact, you can't. Unlike most of the posters on this net, when I post
a fact, I check it with at least one source.

A lot of people get upset at what I write. Consider the "acid rain" issue
this week.

Probably most of you "believe" that acid rain is killing the forests. I even
warned, and explicitly asked one bozo "is acid rain killing the forests,
yes or no." He answered yes. The scientific evidence, and there is a LOT
of it, says no.

What a silence, eh Maddi. Actually what happens is a lot of people "BELIEVE"
they "know" something, when actually all they've done is ingested some
propaganda.


In your case, isn't interesting that in the 2 years you've followed this
group, that this is the FIRST time you've called what you claimed is one of
many mistakes?


Unlike others, when an objective mistake is called, I respond to it. Since
I am not infallible of course, that will happen.

In this case, I feel the mistake is minor. After all, given the assertion,
don't you even think it's weird that a Republican judge is getting high
ranking Democratics comin g to his defense on a very nasty crime?
Obviously these Democrats must have some reason?

But you can't respond to that can you? That would be addressing the big issue.


Oh, well, some people are destined for nit-picking ....



In any case, let me restate the issue you are AVOIDING. Polictically Correct
politicians get away with murder. And (I have reserached this one most
carefully) Sol Watchler is one most Politically Correct judge. In fact,
it is surprising he is a Republican at all -- my guess he didn't change
party affiliatian because he was doing quite well. He was in line for
a Democratic nomination goody (perhaps the Supreme Court was the speculation
of one article) and it actually helped him to be a Republican because then
the Democrats could show how fair they were in nominating a Republican.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) 
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: GAYS IN THE MILITARY
Date: 24 Dec 92 22:45:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Transfer Station BBS, Danville, CA - 510-837-4610/837-5591
Reply-To: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) 

Well, sounds like the military folk are at it again.  I just heard on
KGO that some military recruiters have been caught for harrassing
potential female cadets.  According to the story, they would tell the
women (these were men conducting the procedures) to strip down, the
women were led to believe that this was part of a physical.  It turned
out to be just another case of HETEROSEXUALS acting like monsters.
Sound like the Tailhook scandal of a few months back?

Why does the military's hetersexual community continue to derail
themselves like this?  One of the frequently used arguments against
homosexuals in the military is that "those people will try to have sex
with others."  Well, you rarely (if ever) hear of homosexuals doing such
acts.  And there are thousands upon thousands of homosexuals in the
military now (and there always has been).

I am not a homosexual, I just find it interesting that so many of us
heterosexuals find ourselves in this peculiar position.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:47:42 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Dec19.003912.20787@netcom.com>, madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
# San Jose Mercury News, Page A1, below the masthead story:
# 
# TWO S.J. PASTORS CHARGED WITH MOLESTING BOYS
# 
# Took place over the last four years.  One pastor was
# married, the other not.  The church was Jubille
# Christian Center, the largest church in the county.
# Same lovable bunch of fundies who brought us the
# Satanic Child Abuse Scares.  I believe this
# phenomenon is called "projection."
# 
# Interestingly enough, the church recently began a
# "New Beginnings" ministry to convince homosexuals
# to change their lifestyles.  Also, the church was
# one of several signatories to a letter to SJ school
# districts accusing them of promoting homosexual
# "propaganda."

Sounds like they needd to clean house first.  But since
homosexuals would like it to be a criminal offense to discriminate
against child molesters in employment...

# My advice to these fine citizens is the same as my advice 
# to Messrs. Cramer and Ronzone: Clean your own house first.  
# It's *much* filthier than anything outside.
# 
# I also await Mr. Cramer's demand that all churches be
# closed because so many child molestors are among the
# clergy.  This is real, Mr. Cramer.  If you care about
# abused kids, then make a fuss about the people *really*
# doing the abusing, not your personal bogeymen.
# 
# Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com

Absolutely.  You'll notice that they both left the employ
of Jubilee Christian Center, pronto.  The church wouldn't
tolerate their presence.

Yet another argument for why homosexuals (closeted or not)
shouldn't be employed around children.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: The bait set, and taken  Re: Omnipotent ecologist speaks (Re: The lack of vision)
Date: 23 Dec 92 06:39:57 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Dec23.060102.13123@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>(An anonymous asshole writes)
>Well, some yahoo regurgitates the local eco-agit-prop that "acid rain is
>duh, killing the forests", and when I call the turkey on it, "it" can't
>admit that "it" was wrong.
>
>So I guess now "it" resorts to "acid rain is killing the car finishes".
>
>Oh sink me .....
>

It is easy to sink you.  If we look at the majority on the
newsgroup, they disagree with most of what you say, not becuase
it is fashionable, but becuase you lack insight and the ability
to interpret information correctly.

Forest have and are dying from acid rain effects on soil and lakes.

I won't even mention the destructive aqua life effects.

Yes it is true about car finishes- if you want I will post the
information so you can look it up for yourself.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 05:53:06 GMT

In article <105448@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >>C. The anus is not designed for sexual intercourse.
    >>
    >How so? (Hint, I'm humoring you---this argumment has been
    >trotted out many times by pinheads on alt.sex) Does sexual
    >intercourse have only one purpose?

Whooosh -- right over your head Brian. That's the whole point. For example,
it is biologically built into us to fear and be wary of heights. They've
shown this in babies barely old enough to crawl.

But look at the hammerheads that give the jollies in very very dangerous
mountain climbing. Or any danger sport for that matter.

    >>Why do YOU want a law that would force, say, a Christian
    >>landlord that believes stronlg that homosexuality is a sin to
    >>rent to a homosexual?
    >>
    >I don't. I just don't want said landlord to believe that his
    >irrational prejudices will go unchallenged via constant
    >discourse.

That's the whole issue. You arrogantly think that YOU *know* what is an
irrational prejuduice and that others don't.

    >Religion can destroy critical minds.
    >
    >>I don't ask YOU why you are homosexual. I don't ask you why
    >>you are "fucking the wrong sex"
    >>
    >Your implications of my hypocrisy would be believable were I
    >actually asking why YOU are heterosexual, etc.
    >
    >You just don't understand. You think your prejudices are not
    >to be questioned.

What abigot. O.K. Brian, why are you so irrational against having
hetereosexual sex? Huh, why? We evolved, and indeed can only propagate
by sexual intercourse of the two sexes? Why do persist in performing
irrational acts? Why, huh, why?

That's the difference between us -- you want to be the way you are, and
yet get all upset when some people don't like the way you are and want to
have coercive laws to "force" their acceptance.

I want to be the way that I want to be, and realize that the "price" is that
other people have the freedom to like or not like it, and that they can take
action appropriately.

They have as much right to be subjective in their life as I do mine.

But I don't try to use force to "change" their minds.

You state "I just don't want said landlord to believe that his
irrational prejudices will go unchallenged via constant discourse.".

That about sums it up -- you want to use force to change men's minds.

Bloody fascist. Just change you name to Roehm the secodn and have done with it.

Intolerant scum -- just can't stand that people don't beleive the way you
want them to, eh?




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: markc@smsc.sony.com (Mark Corscadden)
Subject: dangerous group (was: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ)
Keywords: Phil,Ronzone,foam,mouth,bite,rabies,look,out
Organization: Sony Microsystems Corp, San Jose, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 23:34:14 GMT

I'm new to the ba news hierarchy (though I've lived in the Bay Area for
fourteen years) so I was looking around for a group in which to discuss
the evil ways of our local cable company.  I thought ba.politics might
be a reasonable choice, but was I in for a surprise!  This group seems
to be a seething cauldron of nothing but the most volatile topics you
ever wanted to stay away from.

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

Mark Corscadden
markc@smsc.sony.com
work: (408)944-4086
From: tcbowden@clovis.felton.ca.us (Timothy Bowden)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,scruz.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Wire Stories on Iran-Contra 12/28/92
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:47:18 GMT
Organization: Yucca Flats II in Felton, CA

rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:

> In article <1ht099INN5dh@hal.com> berggren@hal.com writes:
> >I'm just passing on a posting of considerable import, for your reading pleas
> >Please copy and distribute as widely as possible.

><Pardon Hardon of Gary Wills omitted...>

> What has this to do with groups for California *state* or Santa Cruz and 
> Bay Area *local* politics?

Point of Atlas info:  Somalia is not in Santa Cruz County, nor is
Bosnia.  Yet the most noteworthy event in local annals this past year
challenges our own perceptions and very natures to such a degree that we
would willingly export our discussion to avoid it.  Ask why in this
cradle of human potential sentiment there are gender-rigged traps to
thwart that potential and even that humanity in one half of our number
and be answered that along the sands outside Mogadishu the CIA piles
grain elevators to forge an imperialist post on the Indian Ocean.

We are perhaps in Somalia for the same reason Bush is;  to avoid
unpleasant realities at home.



=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
tcbowden@clovis.felton.ca.us - 
uunet!scruz.ucsc.EDU!clovis.felton.ca.us!tcbowden
Join the electronic campfire we call Nerdnosh:
nerdnosh-request@scruz.ucsc.edu
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:43:49 GMT

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >
madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes: >    >

>    >Ha. I have called you on FOUR errors of fact in FOUR posts.
>    >In one day. I suggest that maybe your sources might be
>    >correct, but you aren't reading them correctly. I also note
>    >you rarely give references.
>
>In your mind. Certainly more references than you.

I see you still fail to respond to my charge that you post
a lot of misinformation, in hope that no one will call you
on it.

Where is the support for your claim that r.h.f. is PC?  This
is the fourth time I've asked you.

>Tell me, just HOW much money does a Republican have to give to Democratic
>Governor Mario Cuomo to get him to say "No matter what [the judge] had done,
>it was a narrow ... aberration", and to also remark "what did the charges
>have to do ... with what kind of judge he was, the kind of man he was?".

I don't know, I don't go around bribing people.  I do know that MONEY
TALKS.  Remember the Keating Five?  None of them were strung up
either.

>Of course, you consistently avoid, over and over again, the issue.
>What dear old Sol did is far worse than Packwood. Packwood has NO Democratic
>friends -- Wachtler has a great many. If Packwood is being crucified, then
>Wachtler should be excuted. Except one is Politically Correct, and one isn't.
>And we generally find more PC among Democrats than Republicans.

More lies.  Packwood had the support of a number of women's groups,
he was more supportive of women's rights than has Democratic
opponent, Les AuCoin, and received endorsements from many Democrats.
So what in blue blazes are you talking about?  Packwood was 
considered one of NOW's best friends in the Senate; that's why
at first they were NOT calling for his head.

The only one avoiding the issue is you.  The issue is you are
incapable of participating in a debate.  If you tried this
nonsense in a debating club, you'd be ejected.  Quit looking
for your PC-bogeymen; they only exist in your mind.

>Now, run along and scream about errors and typos and whatever else makes
>you feel good, but, you are ignoring the issue.

Here, you are only speaking to yourself.

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Are they not men?
Date: 21 Dec 1992 23:34:43 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Dec21.220158.4146@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>To sexually
>grope someone is not an assualt unless there is an intent to bodily harm
>or it persists after a "no". (Otherwise you have the absurd situation
>where the very first initiation of petting between two people is an
>assault).

So Phil, if I just happen to pass by, is the grope free?  

>
>1. Some football jock that came out of the closet writes how after he
>   came out, the other jocks (basically) avoided him in the locker rooms.
>
[deleted]

>   Now, consider the size and physical shape of a footbal player, I don't
>   think those men were worried that they would be raped/assualted. But they
>   clearly didn't feel "comfortable" around this guy -- their sexual context
>   was being violated.

So what about those many situations where they don't know?  You see it all
boils down to what you know. It is how knowledge tends to manipulate people
rather than the other way around.  

If you don't know something, then you find out later has anything been
violated.  Isn't a violation a condition of knowing what is going on and
not having it stopped?  So before Mr. Football told no one knew the difference
and no one acted strange.

>
I see these people who don't know, then do know something and then change
their behavior as being manipulated by their own reactions, they don't
think about why they are acting differently, they just react like my cat
does, when I do something it doesn't find an affinity for.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:59:47 GMT

In article <92357.38599.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
    >One of the primary arguments used by the "anti-gay" forces
    >(for lack of a better term) is that heterosexuals will feel
    >uncomfortable around someone who is openly gay. Well, yes,
    >that's true. Some people will undoubtedly feel uncomfortable.
    >But is there a right to feel comfortable? ... ... But much of
    >the argument I've heard revolves around "discomfort." I hope
    >I've dissected that aspect of the debate.

1. Well, since it much more cost effective to not have seperate facilities,
   then of course we shall remove the seperate arrangements for men and
   women in the military.

   Of course, many if not all women will now feel uncomfortable in showering
   with the men and bunking with the men, but, hey, where's comfort mentioned
   in the constitution?

2. Anto-gay is a very loaded term. You seem to assume that if people don't
   agree with a position held by some homosexuals, that they are anti-
   homosexual.

   Not a valid position at all.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

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