HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL (Grzegorz Albinowski)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: if I don't want ..
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:02:06 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET" at Dec 17, 92 1:26 am

CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET pisze:

>> If I don't want to hire blacks, I don't have to.
>>
>> If I don't want to serve blacks, I don't want to.
>>
>> If I don't want to treat black employees equally as white employees, I don't
>> have to.

That's it!

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:40:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      dull tv

>
> Rush's arrogance is an act.  Anyone that has seriously watched his show woul
> be able to pick that up.  Is he racist?  There are black people working for
> and black people in the audience.  So I think not.   -Rich

Just because he hires and invites blacks doesn't mean he doesn't hold and
express racist views.

I'm not saying he's a racist; frankly, I've never heard the man and I don't
ever want to.  But your reasoning seems to be a little off.

One of the Ellens
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:41:26 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: more responses to andy f.'s comments

>Ideally, I would like to see total ownership of larger (that have gone
>public) in the hands of the workers and a trend toward worker ownership
>in smaller businesses.

Note that the "workers" can have that whenever they want it - they
can buy biz.

I've got some biz ideas but am a bit cash-poor.  Since O'Andy thinks
that owners don't have any right to control their assets, I'm sure
he'll send me a significant amount of money immediately so that I can
put them to work.  Or, are his assets "special"?

How come "good" people won't voluntarily do the things they demand of
bad ones?

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:02:42 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: the way dull tv ought to be
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Anyone who has seriously sat down and watched Rush could not say that he hates
 anyone.  You have to know when he is joking and when he is serious but even
 when
joking he does not spread hate for anyone   -Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 08:56:04 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: An Historian

Jimbo"the false Dmitry" says:
>Rechecking, I see that I made a mistake when I posted this an stuff.

Rechecking my post, and one of -T.'s old posts,
I realize that this doesn't actually address my
question, though I'm sure -T. both appreciates
your help and denies the relevance of the authority
you cite.

See, my question was to -T.'s very specific claim
that in "History" and "Historian," one "H" was
haspirated, the other not.  I was sort of hoping
that they would make some comment on that post, with
the backing of their dictionary (which they *have*
demonstrated that they can use).

Silence = Consent

                           -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Return-receipt-to: "KirkpatrickH" <kirkpatrickh@mumcbm.rferl.org>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:22:04 U
From:         KirkpatrickH <kirkpatrickh@MUMCBM.RFERL.ORG>
Subject:      RE: racism
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

As a fellow human (and Rush fan) I have to Wholeheartledly agree.

I can't even say it better.

David for PRESIDENT!!!


>I think our attempts to
>statistically measure *possible* discrimination have increased
>"race conciousness"; leading to remedies and preemptive actions
>based on group membership, however ill-defined, rather than
>actual harm done to an individual.

Our definitions are getting harder to make. As America becomes more racially
diverse it becomes more racially Homogenous. (I'll leave the semaniticists to
that one, Rick??)

>"I submit that there is no public policy served by using
>race/ethnicity classifications, with the exception of law
>enforcement/ID purposes. I think such groupings are used as
>poor proxies for more important and *individual*
>characteristics like education level, health status/risk and
>socioeconomic status. Furthermore, I think our attempts to
>statistically measure *possible* discrimination have increased
>"race conciousness"; leading to remedies and preemptive actions
>based on group membership, however ill-defined, rather than
>actual harm done to an individual.


>- David, who's glad to see Kirk is another "Rush" fan"

>David "New Jersey" Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:00:00 EST
From:         waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      surgeon generalissimo
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Jamie:
>>        Rumor has it that it's Joycelyn Elders.
>That's funny. I thought it was already announced. Maybe I am either
>mis-remembering or have misread the NY Times?
>I thought the Times reported this morning that Clinton had named
>Elders.

They did.  It apparantly surprised the hell out of Antonia Novell when
she read it, too.  She's stated that she has no intentions of stepping
down until her term expires, though according to NPR she's meeting with
Clinton's advisors to try to work something out.

William Sessions has also said he'd be staying on, serving out his five
year appointment as FBI director.

There was another whose name temporarily escapes me, who could have stayed
on, but has announced he would resign to allow Clinton to make his own
choice.

>Why is Surgeon General more like Fed Reserve Chair than it is like
>Secretary of State?

I don't know, Jamie.  Why *is* the Surgeon General more like the Fed Reserve
Chair than it is like the Secretary of State?

>Jamie

waiting for the punchline,
Gary W. Olson                   "Santa'll cut ya, man!  Santa's a blade man!"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU     -Crow, MST3K presentation of
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET               'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:17:59 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject: Re: Other People's Money
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              14, 92 4:22 pm

K=A*T pisze:
>> > Given the above, I believe our leaders (and I voted for some of them) have
>> > a moral obligation to both limit spending public money and to spend it
>> > wisely, neither of which is being done very well, IMO.
>>
>> > -David (just call me "Hoss")
>>
>> I have no problem with the above.  In fact I agree with the sentiment
>> that our leaders and elected officials are not spending our money
>> wisely or ethically.  However, your tone above is markedly different
>> from claiming that tax money is private money "taken" away from
>> individuals.
>>
>> --KAT
>>

Tax money is private money "taken" away for several special purposes:
- defending the country from the outside dangers (international politics
  and warfare if necessary);
- preventing civil disorder inside the country;
- maintaining the administration for the two purposes above;

That's all. Everything else is fraud.

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:58:52 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: why gold
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

It is interesting that Caius considers titanium as a new standard for "solid
currency," I myself once offered the idea that the "new economy" of the future
might be an energy-based economy. "Ergs (= "A centimeter-gram-second" unit of
energy ...") or calories might be the new standard, or maybe even
 "foot-pounds."Again, we, as a total species planet-wide, have to agree on such
 a standard -
at the moment, "free market" standards demand a free-floating currency that
measures against each other, and that is not pegged to a standard. It would
seem to me that a free market advocate would accept the status quo, rather
than attempt to go backward to a "fixed" standard (isn't that "government
interference?"). VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:31:26 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: why gold

>From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>

>No, the gov't will have gold from taxes ONLY, no more. Why do you think it
>should have?

Because in the only example of the gold standard we know about,
the government held huge gold reserves in Fort Knox.

>The oz. (ounce of gold) *IS* the currency. The rates of other nations
>currencies (not based on gold) are set on the free market.

This is not getting more clear. It is getting less clear.

If you, Caius, or Jimbo, or whomever, prefer to accept only
pieces of gold as currency, you are PERFECTLY free to do so.

I, personally, prefer to accept U.S. notes as currency. I am
perfectly free to do so.

Why don't we simply let the market decide whose kind of currency
will be used?

>>> Caius has not explained in what way the standard manipulations of
>>> the money supply would change or be prevented if there were a gold
>>> standard, and it appears that he isn't GOING to explain it.
>
>I have sent many (i think too many) postings with explanations. If you don't
>read POLITICS regularly, ask the LISTSERV for archives.

I read it regularly. You haven't sent any explanation.

Jimbo sent an attempt at an explanation. His explanation was that
the government should get out of the money business. That's an
interesting idea. But I have no clue what it has to do with a gold
standard.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:46:54 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      RE: Spike Lee and Racism
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Kirk,

26000 incidents of racism in the past month????  Isn't that figure a
little high?  Anyway, I for one would be interested in hearing more
about what is going on over there in Germany from the perspective of
someone living there.  How bad are thee conditions?  Are you
experiencing problems as an American?  Do you have any anecdotes or
things you've observed personally?  You say you get to watch it happen.
 Please tell us about it!

Pizz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:24:36 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: your mail
              16 Dec 1992 16:20:01 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

Well, Brett', that will happen if you try to integrate and differentiate
at the same time. :)

Any ideas on who will be Surgeon General?  I wish that it could be Dr. Koop
again, but he may not want the job back.

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 13:55:33 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject: Re: lower taxes

>>>If taxes are really low, why should they bother to look for all those
>>>legal shelters.

>>Because they want to make more money.

>>>Why should they risk to do illegal things.

>>Not germane to the argument at hand.

>Sure it is.  All other things being equal, I prefer to avoid breaking
>the law, because that can have a cost.  However, "money" is one way to
>make things unequal, to pursuade me to break "the law".

Up to this point the arguments presented have not been about fraud
or illegal tax evasion; the original post made no mention of such.
The original argument was based upon the supposition that the
wealthy would find legal (sheltered/ tax preferred) places to
put their money into.

If you want to start a thread on "tax fraud of the wealthy," be my
guest, I will be delighted to hear anything substantive you have
to say on the matter. B)


>>Maybe. But these folks can pay somebody else to find ways to
>>get the lowest rate. (And do so all the time)

>Paying someone to help you find illegal options is a risky
>thing to do.

See above; I was referring to the use of investment counselors,
accountants, brokers, etc. Many make a quite comfortable living
by finding legal means for the wealthy to invest their money
and maximize their profits.

>-andy

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:36:49 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Queens controversy yet again

>So you need to come up with a better justification for your attitude
>than this.  So far all you've offered is personal distaste as a
>justification for restricting the ability of gays to live or work
>where they please.

Actually, I haven't offered personal distaste at all.  I also haven't
advocated "restricting the ability of gays to live and work where they
please".  I've merely said that no owner is obligated to provide it to
them.  (I'd like to have a Ferrari.  Is the local Ferrari dealership
"restricting" my ability to have one by refusing to give one to me for
the price I can afford?)

I want other people to have the "right" to pick and choose on whatever
basis they pick because I want that right for myself.  I have many
"minority" interests and I don't want society interfering with them.

Does Peter really believe that only "good" interests will be
protected?

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:48:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds

>What is our purpose on Earth,

This is where you should have stopped, Pizz....you really have the answer to
that for all of us?

>if not for procreation, and the betterment of the future world for our
>children?

I don't see that these ideals inherently exclude others...are you saying that
they do?


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:54:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Hate Speech is back

>Oh, Ramon asked someone to explain why it might seem as though he
>is crazy. The explanation is very simple. Ramon is crazy.

ramon is crazy?
oh goody! someone who will understand.....

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 15:21:32 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: prime theories
              18 Dec 1992 13:00:53 -0800 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>>> KAT is confusing "less" with "unfair".  Said average rich guy is
>>> paying MORE, that's a fact.  It may be "not enough", that is,
>>> "unfair", but it is MORE.

>> Very cute.  No, KAT did not CONFUSE less with unfair. Maybe KAT meant
>> to say, "You can tell me..., I will still claim that that is unfair."

> That's somewhat better.  It can be both MORE and unfair, but KAT's
> response to "it's more" is "I will not buy it AND will still claim
> that it is unfair."  If he didn't want to suggest that he was
> rejecting "MORE", he could have done so from the beginning.

Look, I made a little slip, one which I think anybody should
have realized it (If T. knows Robert is talking about an anus
even if he says rectum, then at least you...).  Nevertheless
you brought it up and I immediately corrected myself.  So what
is this patronizing attitude saying "That's somewhat better.......
he could have done if from the beginning?"  I say it again: it
was a mistake, a slip, not a misunderstanding.  So what are you
gonna do now: punish me, give me penance?  Where is the holiday
spirit?

> Not being a mind-reader, I won't guess what KAT really "means" and
> comment only on what he writes.  Since it is so hard to discuss things
> with him without being a mindreader, perhaps discussing things with
> him is poor judgment.  I guess that says something about both of us.

So if I say, "men are deprived from a fundamental joy since they
may get pregnant," you need to be a mind reader in order to realize
that I simply dropped a "not?"  What do people call this attitude?
Condescending?

>>> Progressive marginal or progressive average?  One can have one without
>>> the other.

>> How about both.

> How about not?  After all, we've seen that progressive marginal has
> some bad properties and there doesn't seem to be a good argument for
> it.  (Note that arguments for progressive AVERAGE are not necessarily
> arguments for progressive MARGINAL.)

(A reference to the usage of the word "choice" by Andy was deleted.
I regret that this might cause Andy to even "wonder" some more.)

"Bad properties," which bad properties?  I don't recall seeing anything.
Can you elaborate a bit and be a bit more specific?  And "there doesn't seem
to be a good argument for it?????"  Are you serious?  Did you think I
would let this pass by?  How about this for at least one good argument
for it: it put a higher burden on those who can afford it.

> -andy

--KAT who discusses serious matters seriously but doesn't TAKE them
      seriously.
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Home ownership among the poor es
Date: 15 Dec 92 12:27:44 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              15 Dec 1992 02:54:56 GMT from <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

> --Jimbo, who knows some REALLY big numbers.

OK, I dare you to a duel of who has got the bigger number.  I am
so confident that I even allow you to go first.

--KAT :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:06:17 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: andy f. quietly declares class warfare on the "rivet-heads"

>What defines this reasonable standard of living?  Is it relative (read
>class-warfare), or absolute?  (Hint: O'Andy's salary ratio limit is
>relevant only for class-warfare.)

A resonable standard of living is absolute, which is why in the past
I have advocated a flat tax with a large exclusion at the bottom
end (first 10k/dependent - no tax), fairness in compensation is
relative (say comparable worth, I know you can).

Note that the ratio limit that andy f. is talking about is a limit
to how much can be written off on taxes by a corporation, not how
much they can pay an employee.

>BTW - is O'Andy claiming that double-standards are necessary to get us
>to utopia, that we have to break a few legs, I mean eggs?

Nope, sorry, I'm not claiming that.

>The means PRODUCE the ends.  The intentions are largely irrelevant.

The intentions provide the motivation and allow one to discriminate
between differing means; hardly irrelevant.

>-andy

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:53:00 CST
From:         POHENRY@STMARYTX.BITNET
Subject:      integral differential

To Brett's comments on Mr. Clinto "measuring up."

Yardstick?  maybe a one centimeter calibrator would be more appropriate for
anyone to measure up to mr. reagan's "achievements?"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:51:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> Suppose I am casting for a production of "Othello." I decide I will
> not even consider any white or Asian actors, only black ones.
> That isn't racist.

Hmm.  An all-black production of "Othello."  What a fascinating idea.
:-)   :-)

> One (admittedly only tangentially related) question for Doctor Pizz:
> WHAT exactly do you think is wrong with homosexuality?
>
> I am delighted that you do not subscribe to Magic Book theory of
> moral judgments. But I wonder what your alternative basis is.

As do I.  Please enlighten us.

Best,
Peter

> Jamie
>
> Footnote to Joe:
>
> >Jim gave 2^b as the biggest number using some mathematical terms.  Did
> >they mean that what number is before the "b" doesn't matter?  i.e. is
> >9^b not larger than 2^b?
>
> 2^b, or not 2^b, that is the question, I guess.
>
> Jim? Oh yeah, him.
> If b is infinite, then 9^b is not larger than 2^b. Well, it depends
> on which kind of "larger" you use, and which kinds of numbers you're
> talking about, but Jimbo's is the most common interpretation.

I'm beginning to think that there's a bit too much ^ being used around
here.  You can overdo it, you know.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:37:00 CST
From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      wwf II

Linda ... you are cruel, but fair.

I was not so much asserting my definition of "sport" as I was criti-
cizing other people's definition.  That seems to be the trend on this
LIST and I am not one to be different.

But, not to drag anything into the ground, I think you misconstrued m
y own misconstruction of the argument.  "wrestling is fake and there-
fore it is not a real sport."  Football suffers from this logic.

I used think the women on "gladiators" huge also ... till I moved to
the midwest !
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:50:14 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re:
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Dec 14, 92 2:18 pm

>>
>>            If you think, though, that the schools should be
>> neutral toward the topic, then we don't have a quarrel--providing
>> we can agree what "neutral" means.  To me, neutral means that we
>> tell students, when the subject comes up, that homosexuals are
>> people and citizens, with exactly the same rights as all other
>> peop e and citizens.

Homosexuals have the same right to have a life and property, and to defend
those rights in the court. But they are NOT normal, and I think that should be
clearly stated.

Caius.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics