HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:20:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.DREW.EDU
Subject:      Various comments
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Jamie: since you are the logics czar, it is logical (heh heh) for you
to debate on words since that language is a key part of logic.  The
problem seems to me is that the debate because personal and people go
down to the level of ad hominem (which are fun if you are not part of
them) that gets messy.  Still it will continue after I leave the list
as it did before I came, and the list will survive for another Joe Not
So Average to criticize them.  Such is the state of free debate and
I'll take it over limitations of it thereof.

Idiot use: As I prophesized, calling Robert an idiot was responded
with another personal attack. Since idiot and Nazi was used, egomanaic
was put into use though it didn't quite fit. (anyone for a better word
to fit Kat?  or is egomanaic fitting?).  Jamie's attempt to show how
illogical Robert was, was reponded with a somewhat more helpful post.

Racism: A text I have defines it as prejudice + power, but even within
this construction it can be argued that groups with less power in
society (ex. blacks) can use that power with their prejudice and be
racist.  Definitions can be used to cloud truth, as Ellen showed well.

Normal: "normal" is a societal construct on what is to be accepted in
society.  It really doesn't have a place in most areas in protecting
the rights of those "normal" or not.  A homosexual may not be seen as
normal, but his/her rights in society should be upheld.  I really
don't see how abnormality should keep me from getting an apartment.
What kind of society is that?  Besides, as I argued a while back the
liberty to make a contract has equal protection criteria attached, and
this includes work and apartments.  Please show why blacks should be
included in this but not homosexuals.

Gender v. Sex: "The Crying Game" is a movie that shows that the latter
is the better word to use.  Great movie too.

    -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: racism
Date: 19 Dec 1992 15:25 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <9212181837.AA14446@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,       
  Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes...
>Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be [this writer] pisze:
>>>
>>> In article <9212171545.AA05336@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,
>>>  Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes...
>>> >So you think, that when a white policeman hits a black hooligan it's
>>> >racism.
>>> >
>>> >And the opposite is "social justice" and "minority rights"
>>>
>>> Not necessarily.  The general inference is that there are racial overtones in
>>> both cases, but that historically, it's more likely to be racial in the white
>>> attacks black situation.
>>>
>>>                                                         Dan, ad nauseum
> 
>I think it's racial to catogorize poeple by race in making any judgements. 

Ahem!  I was speaking as a matter of probability, not certainty.

							Dan, ad nauseum
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 13:36:57 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: the way dull tv ought to be
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Rush does not judge or treat people differently based on their race.  He thinks
 all people are equal and there should be no laws saying differently.
-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:07:47 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Packwood, Inouye, Thomas, etc....
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >How about it's because Packwood "admitted" his wrongdoings and Inouye has
> >denied his.
> >
> >Jonathan
>
>         Just like Clarence Thomas.
>
> Brett'
>

What's the point of this?  If Inouye was going for a seat on the
bench he would be forced to face his accusar.  But in fact the
people of Hawaii voted for him despite knowledge of accusations of
his "wrongdoings".

Packwood LIED about his wrongdoings to the press until after the
election.  Then he "admitted" them.

Now if Inouye had come out after the election and had said that
he had done the things that he was accused of, I would feel the
same sort of disgust that I have for Packwood toward Inouye.

And the press would be covering Inouye as well as Packwood.

But he didn't.  So they aren't.  If you want the press to follow
rumors, why didn't they make more of a stink about Bush's infidelities?

It's not all a big giant liberal conspiracy!

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:57:21 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      An Question of H.

  -T. saw fit to do everything but
the very simple act of opening the
dictionary and answering the question.
No surprise there.

  The question was, does -T.'s
dictionary, which we now know
they know how to use, differentiate
between the pronunciation of the
"H" in history and historian.

  It was -T's claim that it did.

  But for all of -T.'s violent assertions
on this issue, they still won't just quote
the dictionary and put it to rest.

  Of course, we know how -T. feels about
the value of experts in an argument.  And
now we know how -T. feels about evidence
in arguments, too.

                  -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:29:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: baby wants a drink

On Thu, 10 Dec 1992 15:44:00 EST JCOCURUL@DREW.DREW.EDU said:
> nope since the aborted fetus/embryo is not born, but the fetus/embyro
> that is a sufferer of FAS will be born thus have to suffer the effects
> while growing up as a person -- those who support the right of
> abortion feel the fetus is not a person thus doesn't have the right of
> life protected by the 14th amendment.   A born child has the right to
> sue (or do so via his/her ward) for injury caused in utero since it is
> a person by law -- part of this suffering can be drug related.
This is rather inconsistent logic, don't you think?
I assume that pro-choicers believe that the unborn child is a part
of the mother's body (You know--"MY BODY, MY CHOICE!").  So what
a woman does with her body cannot be prohibited by anyone.  So how
can this kid sue for what his mother did to him when he was a part of
her body?
>    -Joe
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:08:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Recent List History for Ramon

>Recently, Ramon, the list held an election for President.  I was the
>winner, so now I'm list president.  However, there do appear to be
>some anti-democratic forces around, a false-pretender to the Presidency,
>and other such rot.

nah huh, jimbo....don't you remember what happened when you tried to usurp
the title of logic czar from jamie??.....do you have an attention span
disorder??

anyway, ramon, jimbo hasn't been well, we think its stress related.....:)

and actually, it doesn't matter who list prez is, since i'm list mother and
list cook and in control of friday beer countdown i'm really the only one
who you need to get acquanted with.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:45:35 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Look Back in Anger, part 1: Missed Opportunities

>Wrong.  It is the number of people below the poverty line *who are not
>adequately covered by existing programs* that is the relevant number
>here, and that is the number used to assess the need for new programs,
>or for increases in existing programs.  Watch your newspapers, you'll
>see from time to time that we have very good figures on the number of
>eligible poor people who are not being reached by current programs.

While Peter has accurately identified the relevant number, he has
inaccurately identified the number used to justify "more".  The
dominant number used for that purpose ignores govt benefits and things
like home ownership, even though those things are (supposed to be)
ignored by aid determination.

From time to time we do see "here's the number of people not being
helped", but ....

-andy
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:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:21:19 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: 70% Human
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET" at Dec 17, 92 4:22 am

CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET pisze:
>>
>> Just heard on ABC World News Now that women make $.70 for every $1.00
>> men make in the US; that's _down_ from last year (I think they said it had
>> been $.72).

There are also many other groups 120% human, 1013% human, 23% human
(where 100% human is an average wage)

Do you suggest that everybody should be AVERAGED just to keep you feeling
100% human ?

I thought 70 years in Russia was enough to teach you a lesson.

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:20:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: rush and the wwf

>On the other hand, the Macho Man picks up his 300 pound opponent -
>above his own head - for several seconds, and throws him down !!!

>Who are the REAL atheletes ?

>Which is the REAL sport ?

so, um, you're saying wwf (wrestling, right?) is the real sport?????
that 'cause the ref. made a bad call due to bad acting (cheating),
football isn't a sport?


what do you think of this strange gladiator show that i've caught my 11 yr.old
watching on saturdays? all i know about it is that people from audience sortof
battle w/the "pros". the women are incredible....bodybuilders w/breast implants.


>I rest my case.

nono, that's, "i rest my keister". which is what you do when you watch these
things on tv.

-linda (who, despite all of dear jeff's explanations (trans. lectures) about
football, still can't figure out why they keep knocking each other down and
then patting each other on the keister)

>                               psr
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 11:24:28 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: prime theories

>I remember a certain person who would not answer the following
>hypothetical question:
>
>        "If it can be shown that banning handguns would reduce
>         crime, will you agree to it?"

KAT "misremembers".  I said that I was unwilling to make that
agreement in a discussion with KAT because he has a history of turning
that into "so, you've agreed to ban handguns, so let's discuss that".
I refused because it's hard enough to keep the discussion out of
fantasyland.

That refusal isn't a significant problem for an honest discussion.
When KAT gets around to showing that banning handguns would reduce
crime, KAT can usefully ask "I've shown that banning handguns will
reduce crime, will you agree to it?  If not, why not?" because that is
a relevant question in that circumstance.  Until he does, it's a moot
question, so avoiding it can't do any harm and arguably does some
good.

Hmm.  I have shown that gun control doesn't reduce crime, that it
increases it in some circumstances.  Did KAT ever bother to tell us
whether or not he supported gun control that didn't affect or
increased crime and why he supported gun control in those
circumstances if he did?  (I suspect that my question prompted his
question.  However, I've made my question relevant.)

>> Tax-free investments tend to have lower interest rates than taxable
>> ones because investors get to keep ALL of the return from tax-free
>> investments.  (All other things being equal, the appropriate measure
>> is after-tax return.)
>
>That is *exactly* what I said, in another post, but Brett' thinks
>(I think) there is no relationship.  So . . . when the bracket is
>increased the rate of return on tax-free bonds will be adjusted
>downwards, thus slowing the flow of new investments in them.

Huh?  Increasing the tax rate INCREASES the tax-advantages of tax-free
bonds.  The investment total is determined the demand for funds by
tax-free bond issuers and the rates that they're willing to pay,
assuming that there's enough money out there to satisfy that demand at
that price.  Increasing the tax rate may actually increase the number
of tax-free investments because said issuers can pay lower rates.  (Of
course, the rate paid by taxable bonds may also go up, because their
after-tax rates are decreased by an increasing tax rate, leaving the
tax-free bond rates unchanged.  That would also shift the balance of
investments.)

Increasing the tax rate affects the spread between taxable interest
paid and tax-free interest paid required to generate the same
after-tax return.  Note that the spread depends on the payee's tax
bracket, so progressive marginal rates make tax-free investments
better for rich people than they are for middle-income folk.  That's
another argument against progressive marginal rates.  After all, bond
issuers pay the same rate to rich and poor.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:40:08 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: prime theories
              16 Dec 1992 13:01:37 -0800 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

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

>>> KAT "misremembers".  I said that I was unwilling to make that
>>> agreement in a discussion with KAT because he has a history of turning
>>> that into "so, you've agreed to ban handguns, so let's discuss that".
>>> I refused because it's hard enough to keep the discussion out of
>>> fantasyland.

>> Maybe Andy could cite just one (1) case that I have done that.
>> Otherwise maybe he should refrain from making such statements.

> Andy did cite one case, a particularly relevant one.

No Andy did not cite ANY.  He said based of history that I would
do that.  If Andy is claiming that I have done that in the SPECIFIC
case of gun control, then since I am quite confidant that Andy is
mistaken, I would like to ask for a direct quote.

> Suppose that I oppose gun control because of the 2nd amendment.  How
> does my motivation affect the crime control properties of gun control?
> My opposition may motivate me to point out the properties, but it
> doesn't affect whether or not those arguments are true.  In other
> words, the answer to KAT's question is irrelevant.

If the discussion was STRICTLY about crime control properties
of gun control, then you are correct.  However, my interest was
to see whether the two opposing sides on this issue could converge.
For that purpose, the opinion of the other side on the 2nd becomes
very relevant.

> -andy

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:39:53 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds
              17 Dec 1992 12:59:40 EST from <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>

From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>

> ...........................  I certainly think they should be allowed
> to do whatever they want to as long as they do not try to proselytyze
> to young children about its virtues.  I think if someone ends up there,
> fine, but we should certainly not be presenting it to kids as an
> equivalent lifestyle to the normal heterosexual family.  After all, in
> some sense we are all on the earth for procreation, and everything we
> do in life is in someway related to making the world more livable now
> and in the future for our kids.  Homosexuals cannot have kids.  It
> seems rather unnatural, therefore to have such sex drives, .........

I agree and would like to add Catholic Priests to the rank of people
who are abnormal.  And though they should be allowed to live their
life as they wish I think they should not be allowed to proselytize
their lifestyle to our young or discuss it in the public.

> Pizz

Doctor KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 07:36:04 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Supreme Court?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>      What do you think will happen to the Supreme Court?
>

  blackmun is gone, the day clinton takes office. the next justice
will be laurence tribe, who is (i think) at harvard law school.
mario will not be nominated this time around. the next opening,
maybe. if rhenquist departs the court, kennedy or o'connor will
be the next chief justice.

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Limiting Posts
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:18:58 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

I am against ANY limitation on posts.

I realize that I am in an advantageous position to do this relative to
some other readers, because receiving a huge number of posts in a day
doesn't cost me anything and is very easy to handle.

But part of the attraction of this list is its broad diversity. And I
mean not only ideological, but stylistic.

So, for example, Michael Morse wishes Robert would stop posting. But for
a small price, he can just delete all of Robert's mail. Joe C. wishes I
would stop talking about words. But for a small price, he can skip those
messages.

Ellen wishes people would stop including enormous quotations for
no apparent reason (well, so do I). But a few strokes of a key
and a block of memory is all it costs her (or me).

No doubt we have lost a few subscribers (in the broad, andy sense
or the narrow, T sense, whatever) because of the volume and noise.
Or volume of the noise. But I think that is a very small price to
pay.

Jamie
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: NORNAL
Date: 16 Dec 1992 19:45 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <9212162024.AA21161@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,        
 Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes...
>Homosexuals are not normal. They can do whatever they want in private,
>but I don't think we all have to consider they normal.

Dear sir:

	On behalf of several friends who probably are unaware of your post, I
request an apology.

						Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:24:25 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: NORNAL

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

>> Would you please define "normal."

> Homosexuals are not normal. They can do whatever they want in private,
> but I don't think we all have to consider they normal.

Let me summarize your position.  You are saying that homosexuals
are not normal.  And in respond to my request, "please define
unnormal," you say unnormal is what homosexuals are.  Right?

I hope you can see that your reply has not helped me a great
deal.

Again I ask:  Will you please define "unnormal."  In other words
I would like to use your definition, go to the streets, and see if
I can find other unnormal groups.

Is a Pole visiting US normal?

> Caius ( =Grzegorz Albinowski )

--KAT
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: An Historian
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:13:27 GMT
Organization: Indiana University


Some minor, but pleasant, political hack wrote:

>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).

Alas, but I am still in the uncomfortable position of defending
-T. on the linquistics front.  Friday night, I had dinner with
a linguist.  So, in my neverending quest for political knowledge,
I asked about this.  She said:

(i) History has the accent on the first syllable, so 'a history'
     is correct
(ii) 'Historian', 'Historical', etc. have the accent on the second
     syllable, so that 'an historian' OR 'a historian' is acceptable
(iii) 'An historian' and 'an historical' are preferred

--Jimbo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:41:35 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Reagan to receive highest civilian honor!
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        Bush will present the Presidential Medal of Freedom to former president
Ronald Reagan a week before Bill Clinton's inauguration.

        A well-deserved honor.

        It certainly gives Mr. Clinton a yardstick to be measured by :).

Brett'
(Anticipating all the responses that last line will generate :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:44:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Recent List History for Ramon
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> anyway, the ones that should have won were the groucho marxists, but this just
> proves its not a perfect world and the list is lacking in laudable laughs.
>
> love & kisses anyway,

Thank you, thank you for that wonderful vote of confidence.

Well, I'm off (but then you knew that)--see you after the holidays.

Have fun, and catch _Duck Soup_ if you have the chance,
Peter

> -linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU