HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:53:40 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <12545@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>My postings have repeatedly emphasized that the argument against
>antidiscrimination laws includes the fact that homosexuals are not
>"just like the rest of us" but are significantly more likely to be
>child molesters

Once again, the only way you can demonstrate this claim is to prove 
that the general homosexual population accounts for less than about
2% of the population. I would like to see this proof. Other recent
polls have shown anywhere between 5 and 15% of the population are
exclusively homosexual.

The 2% figure comes from my analysis of the victimization studies
you provided for the net. It is so small a figure precisely because
homosexuals make up a fraction of all molesters of boys, and since
boy-molesters have many more victims than girl-molesters, a comparatively
miniscule number can account for the 20% of all molestation incidents.

Do I have to repeat this? Or have the several paraphrasings been
sufficient for you to comprehend this logic?

Brian
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8380 soc.motss:41561
From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,soc.motss
Subject: CFV: New newsgroup ca.politics.motss.argue.with.clayton
Date: 3 Oct 92 00:30:05 GMT
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

CALL FOR VOTES:

New newsgroup, ca.politics.motss.argue.with.clayton

Just kidding, folks.  It's impossible to enforce anyway.

It would be nice, tho, to get back to some, eh, OTHER pressing issues.
(No, no, no, not THAT kind of "pressing!")  It's getting so there's
nothing left to read after my KILL file does its work.

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
The new Congressmen say they're going to turn the government around.
I hope I don't get run over again.
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: 30 Sep 92 10:32:55 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <12545@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <195083@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
> # 
> # Hoo boy, now I've heard everything.  You honestly believe that what you
> # have been doing is political activism?  And not motivated by anger and/or
> 
> I've been trying to get AB 2601 vetoed.  Is that political activism?
> Maybe not to a liberal.

Am I supposed to be insulted that you called me a liberal?  By your, rather
bizarre, definition of liberal, 90% of the people in this country are
liberal.  I think I'm in rather good company.

If all you were doing (for the past year and a half) was trying to get
laws such as AB101 and AB2601 prevented and/or vetoed, and were restricting
yourself to political discussion (and facts), I'd have no complaint.  I
wouldn't even bother responding because I know that you take an absolutist
position on FOA.  I'd even agree that this was appropriate behavior for
this newsgroup and agree that it was political activism (*if* that was
all you were doing).

The trouble that many of us have, is that is *not* all that you have done.

> Oh?  My postings have repeatedly emphasized that the argument against
> antidiscrimination laws includes the fact that homosexuals are not
> "just like the rest of us" but are significantly more likely to be
> child molesters, and engage in behavior that demonstrates that they
> are not at all healthy.

Ah, but you have *never* posted *any* evidence that supports your claims.
Evidence, Clayton, remember that?  Studies, expert opinions, facts, remember
those?  All that you have done, in a year and half, is whine, "Reading
soc.motss convinced me that gays are [fill-in-the-blank]".  Sorry, but I
don't see the political content of these postings.  I'd estimate that 3/4
of what you've posted has no factual content, has no political content,
and is completely inappropriate to the newsgroups to which you've posted.
Therefore, it is not political activism, but is instead pursuit of your
own homophobic crusade.

Incidentally, Clayton, my e-mail is still running 100% against you.  Not
one person has come forward to agree with your position.  In these newsgroups,
only one person has joined your crusade in the past several months.  If your
evidence is so compelling, if this political activism, as you call it, is
so appropriate, where are your supporters?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8477 ba.politics:5895 talk.politics.misc:49746
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len B.)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Statistics from nurses ( was  Re: Mr. Cramer's strange views )
Keywords: cia, bush, kissinger, global 2000, eugenics
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:11:49 GMT
Organization: Informed Consent

In article <1992Oct6.000809.8477@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>
>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>
>>In article <12528@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>>>The last time I gave blood, a couple months back, one of the nurses
>>>told a donor that there was still about a 1:100,000 or so chance
>>>of getting AIDS-tainted blood.
>
>
>>That nurse should have been reprimanded for alarmism.  The chance of
>>being infected with HIV for *donating* blood is 0:100,000.
>
>
>Maybe she was answering a direct question ?
>
>-- richard
>
>-- 
>=====
>-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
>         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
>                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.

This may be true but according to Dr. Lorraine Day, the odds are
1 in 5 health workers will become HIV-infected over the life
span of a 45 year career.

Len

--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
From: aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu (Robert Daniel West)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Proposition 165
Date: 30 Sep 1992 17:28:20 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: mingong-ws-2.ucsc.edu


According to an article in yesterday's San Jose Mercury News (which
also appeared in the Sentinel), there is an "error" in Proposition
165 which would take away the legislature's ability to override
a veto of budget-related bills. 
As I have not received my pamphlet yet (not for want of trying, as I've
harrassed the SC County Elections Division mercilessly), I can't comment
as to whether this is true. But I do have a question:

assuming the "error" is really there, does anyone believe the governor's
claim that it is an "error," or does everyone pretty much agree with me
that it is a blatant power grab which was slipped quietly into the
initiative in the hopes that nobody would notice?

Note that, liberal though I am, I agree with the provisions for reducing
welfare grants. I am terribly concerned, however, by the other parts of
the Initiative, which would bleed more power away from the legislature
and concentrate it in the hands of one man  (or woman, giving Kathleen`
Brown the chance to win in 1996).

That concern was extant even before I heard about this "error," which seems
to be an incredible one.

Any thoughts?
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: <None>
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:07:25 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

Well, hey, what do you know...one posting down and I still haven't seen any
information!  Lots of CCC (Clayton Cramer Crap)--speculations not supported
by any evidence--but no hard information.  Boy, if the rest of them are this
good, this flame war's going to be great.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8253 talk.politics.misc:48390 ba.politics:5693
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: "encouraging tolerance" is a bad goal
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:58:18 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep25.153834.18306@tc.cornell.edu>, shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
> In article <y69n2wn.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
# #Then if it was shown that homosexuals as a group have much higher
# #medical costs and incidences of medical sick days
# #then it is O.K. in your book to not hire them?
# 
# You lose, Phool.  In the process of deciding whether or not
# to grant marital benefits to domestic partners of employees,
# Lotus (most notably) and other corporations have investigated
# and documented relative health costs.  Gay people, as a
# group, incur lower health costs than do straight people.
# That great bugaboo, AIDS, is less expensive to treat over its
# course than are most cancers, and the single most expensive
# expense to medical insurance providers is a 'problem'
# pregnancy.
# 
# So, since it's been shown that heterosexuals as a group
# have higher medical costs and incidences of medical sick
# days then it is O.K. in your book not to hire you?
# --
#        Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

Sure -- we're not liberals.  If homosexuals want to start companies
and refuse to hire straights, that's your choice.  I may not be
thrilled about it, but it's YOUR CHOICE.

It doesn't matter who the beneficiary is -- fascism sucks.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Bush: War on Drugs, tax cut->bigger deficit.  Clinton: War on Drugs, spending
increase->bigger deficit.  What a great choice.
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Many Flavors of Bigotry (Was Re: Republicans vs. Centrists?)
Date: 3 Oct 1992 18:00:47 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

Caroline E. Bryan writes:
#Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
#> a magnet for peoples of all other cultures does not make
#> Buchanan or his supporters bigoted Nazis.

#Of course not.  Did you really want to come to America because you perceived
#its culture to be anti-Catholic ....

#of war.  There are even members of the Republican Party who find Buchanan's
#and his supporters' positions execrable and don't hesitate to say and behave

Wait a minute -- isn't Buchanan Catholic?  A *devout* Catholic?
(Perhaps Pharasaically, but that's his business.)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Medical costs for various groups (was 'tolerance')
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:03:02 GMT

In article <12564@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <s1+pbrq.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>> Secondly, uninsured people are more likely to be poor, and the poor
>> have a much larger use (in $$$ terms) of health resources. For example,
>> don't get that minor toothache fixed? Three years later, a $125
>> filling becomes a $3,500 root canal.
>> -- 
>> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>
>Also, they are more likely to use an emergency room for problems
>that should be handled on an office visit -- like a cold or flu.
>Spend some time in a San Jose E.R. -- it's amazing how much 
>patience and time these people must have to wait for many hours
>to see a doctor.
>
>My physician was removing a "dysplasic nevus" (mole that was
>growing funny), and while he sliced, diced, and julienned me, we
>got into a discussion of national health insurance proposals.
>He seemed like he wanted the government to step in, but wasn't
>quite sure how.  I pointed out that the paperwork requirements
>for programs like Medi-Cal are absurd, and said, "But you already
>know that, don't you?"  He then admitted that of his hundreds
>of patients, he doesn't have a single one on Medi-Cal.  (Many
>private doctors are so frustrated with Medi-Cal that they won't
>take Medi-Cal patients).  Since he was busy sewing me up at the
>time, I was reluctant to call him a hypocrite for wanting the
>government to take a more active role in medicine, but he won't
>even treat Medi-Cal patients!

Way to go Clayton. Maybe we are misjudging you. But if we are
it would be due to the somewhat roundabout way you go about
describing your positions on various issues.


>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>Bush: War on Drugs, tax cut->bigger deficit.  Clinton: War on Drugs, spending
>increase->bigger deficit.  What a great choice.

Len

ps: I like your sig!

--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8261 talk.politics.misc:48464 ba.politics:5702
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Medical costs for various groups (was 'tolerance')
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:30:58 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> Again you VERY ignorant. You should not get your "facts" from newspaper
|> headlines.
|> 
|> Blue Shield and Blue Cross are state organizations, not a nationwide
|> company. California Blue Cross is doing very well. And the problems
|> some medical; insurance companies have result more from coercive laws
|> rather than any other single clause.
|> 
|> For example, California Blue Cross, if it could, would NOT pay $77 for
|> 5 grains of morphine to a hospital, as its cost to the hospital is about
|> $0.75. The $76.25 is the "overhead" from the hospital for all the uninsured
|> that the hospital is required to treat -- and on which they rarely get
|> payment.
|> 
|> And the statistical data is shared with several national groups and is
|> considered quite accurate. And why would a company screw its own internal
|> cost data?
|> 
So there are very few uninsured (see recent posts correcting me) but
these people are responsible for 99.02% of the cost of medicine
in hospitals.

It would seem apparent from this information that if we all chipped in
and paid the health insurance for the 10 million uninsured, we could cut
hospital bills by 99%.  Somehow I think Phil's post demonstrates that
having facts may protect one from ignorance but don't guarantee the
ability to process the data usefully.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Subject: Start teaching abstinence (was: CDC study...)
Followup-To: ca.politics
Summary: What planet is this?
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:43:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.015020.18897@jack.sns.com> jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim Best) writes:
>>Even frank discussion of AIDS has not been
>>effective for teens because they still feel they are not at risk. While
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>        This is exactly why the GREAT CONDOM give away and the "SAFE SEX"
>        myth has had no effect on this problem. Until we start telling
>        these kids and adults admit that "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
>        SAFE SEX" AID's is going to continue to run unchecked through
>        society.
>
>        I know it's tough on you liberals out there, but there is no cure.
>        And the only answer is to return to teaching tradition morals. I

Oh, I get it.  Kids defy the advice of using a condom when they have sex
but they will suddenly start obeying the order "don't have sex."


Right.


Listen: if the problem is that kids do not consider themselves at risk,
they will no more refrain from having sex before marriage than they
will having sex without a condom.

But, if you think you can stop unmarried people from having sex, go
right ahead and try.  Don't let it trouble you that they have done
so since the dawn of humanity.

jb
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8313 talk.politics.misc:48822 ba.politics:5749
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Medical costs for various groups (was 'tolerance')
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:24:13 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <s1+pbrq.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> Secondly, uninsured people are more likely to be poor, and the poor
> have a much larger use (in $$$ terms) of health resources. For example,
> don't get that minor toothache fixed? Three years later, a $125
> filling becomes a $3,500 root canal.
> -- 
> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

Also, they are more likely to use an emergency room for problems
that should be handled on an office visit -- like a cold or flu.
Spend some time in a San Jose E.R. -- it's amazing how much 
patience and time these people must have to wait for many hours
to see a doctor.

My physician was removing a "dysplasic nevus" (mole that was
growing funny), and while he sliced, diced, and julienned me, we
got into a discussion of national health insurance proposals.
He seemed like he wanted the government to step in, but wasn't
quite sure how.  I pointed out that the paperwork requirements
for programs like Medi-Cal are absurd, and said, "But you already
know that, don't you?"  He then admitted that of his hundreds
of patients, he doesn't have a single one on Medi-Cal.  (Many
private doctors are so frustrated with Medi-Cal that they won't
take Medi-Cal patients).  Since he was busy sewing me up at the
time, I was reluctant to call him a hypocrite for wanting the
government to take a more active role in medicine, but he won't
even treat Medi-Cal patients!
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Bush: War on Drugs, tax cut->bigger deficit.  Clinton: War on Drugs, spending
increase->bigger deficit.  What a great choice.
From: wje00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Warren Jay Eggly)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Call the Office of the Governor in Orgon - No on 9
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:05:36 GMT
Return-Path: <@juts.ccc.amdahl.com:wje00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com>

Call the Office of the Governor in Orgon - No on 9

I just got off the phone with the Oregon Governors office. They are compiling a 
tally of the numbers of calls they are getting about Measure 9. Please call 
them and tell them you are not in support of Measure 9. It does not mater where 
you are from. The number of the Governor is 

		508-378-3111

eggs

Xref: sparky ca.politics:8229 ba.politics:5674
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Mr. Cramer's strange views
Date: 28 Sep 1992 04:23:44 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <12511@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># 6. Many people have lost loved ones due to the direct or indirect effects of
>#    someone else's being gay or lesbian.
>Ask the people who have lost loved ones because of AIDS contracted
>through blood transfusions or dental work.

This remark floated around in my head for a while, and then I
remembered that they started screening homosexuals out of the blood
donor pool somewhere around 1985, and that the donated blood was
tested sometime around 1986 (at least at Stanford).  I believe this
means that almost all gay men who transmitted AIDS to "loved ones"
(Evelyn Waugh comes to mind...) via blood transfusions were themselves
infected before 1986, or at least six years ago.

I think this means that most of them are dead now, and discriminating
against the ones still alive won't make a hell of a lot of difference.

Certainly, if it is death and public health that bothers you, there
are more effective ways to spend your time than bashing homosexuals.

Similarly, if child molestation bothers you, I note that somehow
disappearing all homosexuals would still leave 4 out of 5 molestations
(using the largest figure I have seen quoted for percentage of
molestations committed by homosexuals).  There are probably more
effective ways to reduce the incidence of child molestation, since
discriminating against homosexuals (assuming that is effective at all)
removes at best 20% of the molestations.  (I assume you can quote me
some study demonstrating that alienated and/or closeted homosexuals
are less likely to molest children, right?)

Perhaps there is some other reason that you bash homosexuals.

David Chase
Sun
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: sybalsky@parc.xerox.com (John Sybalsky)
Subject: Genis-for-Senate publicity items
Summary: I've got a bunch
Organization: Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
Distribution: ba.politics, ca.politics
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 06:22:41 GMT
Expires: 3-Nov-92

If you're a June Genis supporter (she's the Libertarian running for the
long US Senate seat), I've got a bunch of items of interest:


Genis-for-Senate flyers (3-fold, suitable for handing out)
Bumper stickers, on white removable adhesive paper stock
4.5 x 11 window signs
11x17 window signs, which could be turned into lawn signs


If you're interested in any, email me at

	sybalsky.mv@envos.xerox.com

with a USMailable address.  Let me know if you've got friends....

-- 
--John
Venue
I OWN the company.  Of COURSE they're official opinions!
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: 25 Sep 92 22:06:35 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <12517@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> Now, the "homo-haters" -- those people who have great anger at
> homosexuals, and are willing to use violence against peaceful
> homosexuals, aren't what I would consider stable, well-adjusted
> people.  Those that I have known are pretty messed up, usually
> by being molested by homosexuals as kids.  They are quite distinct
> from political activists like me.

Hoo boy, now I've heard everything.  You honestly believe that what you
have been doing is political activism?  And not motivated by anger and/or
fear?  Tell me another one, Clayton.  Judging from your posts, 90% of
which have absolutely nothing to do with politics, you are most definitely
a "homo-hater".  You are condemned by your own words.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ca.politics