HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mellon@ncd.com (Ted Lemon)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:40:03 GMT

byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer) writes:
>The taxation rate on capital gains in the U.S. is the *highest* among
>any of the inductrialized countries.

If you read the article that I most recently posted, you'll see that I don't
disagree with you on this subject.   I think that a long-term capital gains
tax reduction is a good thing.   However, no capital gains tax, which you
seem to favour, doesn't seem like a good thing - it would mean that people
who work to earn a living don't pay as much tax as people who live off of
their investments, and that hardly seems fair.

>The U.S. has extraordinarily high taxes in other areas - sales taxes;
>a very regressive tax, property taxes; punishing people on a fixed
>income who have lived in a house for a long time.

Yup.   Even our income tax is regressive, if you discount the under-50k
portion of the population.

>The U.S.'s income taxes, when all added up - federal, state, and local,
>are very nearly 50%.
Only if you're on the hump - 50 - 250k.   Taxation beyond that point gets
much lower.

>In overall taxation ,the U.S. is nowhere near the bottom.
In overall percentage of the GDP, the U.S. is *at* the bottom (according to
Harper's Index, FWIW).

BTW, the reason for Brazil's miraculous recovery is not low taxation - it's
the destruction of the Brazilian rain forest.   I believe that they will find
this to be a Pyrrhic victory.

				_MelloN_
--
mellon@ncd.com						uunet!lupine!mellon
Member, League for Programming Freedom | To learn how software patents could
cost you your right to program, contact the LPF - league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 01:16:59 GMT

In response to a poke by Royce Myers, Tom Kunich says:
>Les said in so many words that the United States was _run_ by the oil
>companies. This isn't just incorrect, it's a cheap shot.

I said no such thing.  Tom, do you really think that you will
accomplish something by continuing to fabricate straw men then burn
them?  Please do us all a favor and just shut up.

--
Les Earnest                                  Phone:  415 941-3984
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu              USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les         Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
From: jamesg@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu (James Gillespie)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Recumbant bikes
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:06:16 GMT
Organization: Radford University



I recently posted an article to rec.bicycles and was told it was a dying news
group and that this one would be better.  I am interested in information
on recumbant bikes.

Along the same line, there is a bike shop around here that is selling a 
recumbant bike.  It is used (many chips and scratches in the paint, mechanics
look okay) and they are asking $500 for it.  Is this a good deal?  I couldn't
find a name on it, could it have been a custom built?  Where would be a good
site for replacement parts, as some of them are pretty specialized.  Also,
does anyone know of any place in the Northern Virginia area that can/will
repaint a bicycle frame?  Any estimations on costs, problems or pitfalls?

Recumbant riders, please E-mail me with your experiences riding an
unconventional looking bike.  I seriously considering this bike, but I'm
not sure what kind of reception it would get on campus as there are no 
recumbant riders here.

Thanks in advance!

James
jamesg@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu
From: ncherry@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (neil j.cherry)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: traffic rules (was: Hints on commuting by bike?)
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:35:42 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep2.230503.2703@pei.com> fred_s@earwax.pei.com (Fred Scott) writes:
>that matter, so am I...could someone give me a rundown?
>                                               ^^^^^^^
>Fred

Ok, where and when would you like to be rundown? ;-}
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Women and Cycling
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 01:01:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Here in the San Francisco bay area we seem to be a bit more
egalitarian. There are plenty of women bicyclists and some
of them are fast -- certainly faster than most men.

The Oakland Yellow Jackets (guess what color their jerseys are :-))
is composed mostly of black bicyclists and there are more bicyclists
of asian origin than you can shake a stick at. 

I must admit that I have continuously said that until blacks
are involved in the sport, "it ain't no sport" and I still stand by
that. If you don't have general interest in the sport then it is
just another America's Cup fiasco or racing slot cars.
From: mellon@ncd.com (Ted Lemon)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:52:40 GMT

les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) writes:
>Actually, the idea behind gasoline taxes is to generate revenue to
>build more roads so that there will be more motor vehicles so that
>the whole petroleum/motor vehicle business can get larger.

Sigh.   I apologize for being so noisy, but I felt the need to correct this
one too.   Gas taxes actually don't cover the expenses of building and
maintaining roads, even when they are specifically earmarked to do so -
not enough money is collected for that.   A lot of road work is funded by
sales tax or income tax - for example, Measure A, which has funded the
recent construction on Highway 85 in Cupertino, funded that construction
solely from sales tax, which has been paid by everybody in Santa Clara county,
regardless of whether or not they drive.   The reauthorization for Measure
A, which will be on the ballot in November, at least spends most of the funds
on public transportation and the enablement of alternative forms of commuting.

Much state and federal highway funding also comes out of general funds, not
out of gas taxes.   I've heard it said (although I unfortunately have no
evidence to back this up) that the reason income tax in Oregon is as high
as it is is because Oregon has one of the worst person to road-mile ratios
in the nation, and those roads just cost a lot to support.

				_MelloN_
--
mellon@ncd.com						uunet!lupine!mellon
Member, League for Programming Freedom | To learn how software patents could
cost you your right to program, contact the LPF - league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: jrdodd@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Women and Cycling
Date: 15 Sep 92 09:55:13 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <1992Sep14.154817.21355@news.unomaha.edu>, kkrueger@cwis.unomaha.edu (Kurt Krueger) writes:
> 
> The "Women and Bicycles" thread made me think of discussion some of us had
> in our club............................
> Kurt R. Krueger
> kkrueger@unomaha.edu

	Interesting.  I was thinking about this the other day.  On race days
there are plenty of women to be seen around here (Hamilton,  just south of
Auckland),  but of the 60-80 riders of the three cycling groups here (social/
tri/racing),  there are only about 2 women.   Guys are from late teens to late
30's.  I know one black/Maori racer.
	A local race series held last weekend between two clubs even had to get
two women rowers in from a local club to make up numbers! They won too,  40km
in 1hr 5min.
	From my experience many of the cycling oriented sports women are into
triathlons.  Also,  their ranks are quite high in running.  Maybe it's easier
for women to integrate into these sports?  E.g. a difference in speed or
fitness
may not be as pronounced in a 20km run as in a 150km ride.

Jonathan.

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: praetzel@marconi.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Praetzel)
Subject: Re: riding against traffic; bikepaths
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:32:57 GMT

In article <18l2ffINNplt@stanley.cis.Brown.EDU> plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak) writes:
>In article <rlewis.715969508@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> rlewis@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca (Robert Lewis) writes:
>>America (and from my limited experience there, England), i.e., bike
>>paths are needed because it is useless to train the vast majority of 
>>cyclists in how to ride in traffic (only an 'elite' few will ever be
>>able to ride on the roads safely).
>   I disagree.  All it takes to bicycle reasonably safely on roads is
>a combination of following traffic regulations and a good dose of
>common sense (call it defensive cycling if you like).

Well yes and no for me.  Riding a car would take no more skills than driving
a bike on the road.  But the bike takes more nerve if you want to cross 2
lanes to make a left.  Judging by car liscences you could argue that skill
and intellegence are not required and yet everyone gets by fairly well with
only a minor accident every now and then.  So yes only an _elite_ few will
be able to ride them very safely but everyone should be able to do it with
a large degree of safety.  I don't agree that following traffic regulations
are any aid in being a safe driver.  Not being of the lawfull type (chaotic
neutral) I believe that the law is a guideline for "social behaviour" while
riding your car.  Above all you need to be able to predict the behaviour of
others, know the limts of your vehical, know the effects of weather and act
in a manor that is predictable.  This of course means that if in Rome act
like a Roman.  So if everyone drives like crazed speed freeks join in 
because otherwise you are the odd man out and will be hit in short order.
  - Eric 
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: freytag@seas.gwu.edu (Richard Freytag)
Subject: Re: Recumbant bikes
Followup-To: fretyag@seas.gwu.edu
Organization: George Washington University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:24:07 GMT

.....stuff deleted....
 
> Also, I think I would like to try one of the new SWB (short
>wheel base) recumbents.  Usually turning radius doesn't matter on
>roads, but it would be nice to be able to make a U-turn in less than a
>10 or 15 foot radius.  Unfortunately, the new SWBs that I am
>interested in cost about $1500.  Maybe some day.

The ATP-R20 lists for a mere $1350 :-)
Its reviewed in either #9 or #10 of the Recumbent Cyclist.
Anybody have any comments about this bike??

>You will undoubtedly get funny looks, but some people will be
>interested in it.  Some people will get a kick out of your "funny"
>bike. Generally a positive reaction.  You might want to be careful
>about securing your bike, since it might attract unwelcome attention.

I spent most of last Sunday on a LWB 'bent and got uniformly positive and
entertainingly surprised reactions.  The only people with nothing to say
were expensively equipped diamond frame cyclists.  

>My own query: I used to be on some recumbent mailing list on the net.
>Is that still running?  I would like to get back on it if it has any
>activity.

Send a subscription request to hpv-request@sonoma.edu

I have been getting mail-bounce type messages but things still seem to
be getting through.

-Richard Freytag
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:34:58 GMT

In article <64mnq0k.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>
>I'm sure that there are several CEO's of oil companies that
>would be interested to find out that they are the one's running the
>country, Les.

Oh dear.

Thomas - take a look at the guy in the White House.  Where does his
money come from?  Hint - it ain't from selling bicycles (or bike
computers :-) )  See, I managed to work bikes back into this thread!

You're feeling threatened, aren't you?  Your arguments are really getting
pretty desperate.  (I never take ad hominem attack to be anything more
than a tactic of desperation.  Yeah, I know Jobst is rather biased about
Avocet - that sure proves you're right, doesn't it?)

Listen, Thomas, you can have all the toys you want.  When you can pay
for them with your own money, and don't use them to interfere with me
playing with my toys.  (And having bigger toys doesn't automatically
entitle you to a bigger share of the playground!)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (_ad_infinitum_)
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:59:22
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<sandrock.715040040@leo> <9=gnj0c.tomk@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: tomk@netcom.com's message of 30 Aug 92 05:34:11 GMT

>>> As for punishing people who use cars - damn straight!  They
>>> do not pay for the damage they are causing.
> Sez who? What damage are they not paying for?

=+= This thread has shown up before, lotsa times, in the old
rec.bicycles and in various environment newsgroups.

=+= Automobiles cause massive damage to the environment and to
the health of people.  This damage tends not to be paid for.
Indeed, since direct cause-and-effect (i.e., the fumes from
your car driven in place X at date Y did damage to the respir-
atory system of person Z) is impossible to keep track of, the
usual response is simply to ignore this damage.  But it still
occurs.

> what I'm saying is that the majority of the people in the
> United States decides what is good for them.

=+= I have no problem with that _per_se_.  I do have a problem
when, in that decision-making process, they conveniently ignore
what damage they do to others.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:25:43 GMT

In article <c4mn=ah.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>
>People who own boats or large cars or motorhomes or bicycles pay
>for them both directly and indirectly. Wages are paid to those who
>work and those wages are supposedly proportional to the value 
>society places on those services. While we may argue with that fact
>I. for one, cannot think of any other way of doing it. 

Neither can I.  But the price society places on services includes
taxes.  So higher taxes simply mean society has adjusted its prices
based on current availability of resources (a common factor in price
adjustments, no?).

The purchase price only reflects the price the manufacturer places on
the product.  But the manufacturer doesn't provide the roads, police
services, air, health services - "society" does.  So isn't society
entitled to charge a fair price?  As far as I can tell, you're not even
discussing what price is fair and what isn't - you're objecting to the
very concept of paying ANY price for these services!

ObBike:  Last week, my car needed a couple of "minor" repairs - $200,
more than I've spent on my bike all year.  (I figure for every dollar
I spend on the bike, I save several dollars in maintenance, gas, and
insurance on the car, since I'm using the car that much less.)  And
my car has been recalled to fix another "minor" problem - no charge,
but I've got to worry about getting the car to the dealer, getting to
work from there, then picking up the car again at the end of the day.
Gee, my bike is never THAT convenient!  :-)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: ampe@cbnews.cb.att.com (john.e.ampe)
Subject: Re: Let's be careful out there
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:41:35 GMT

In article <35137@cbmvax.commodore.com> adam@cbmcats.UUCP (Adam Keith Levin-Delson) writes:
>In article <+3yn9zm.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>>In article <BuKM73.9vq.2@cs.cmu.edu> moore+@CS.CMU.EDU (Dale Moore) writes:
>> >
>> > 	WEST CHESTER, Pa. (UPI) -- A 20-year-old Montgomery County man has
>> > been convicted of fatally shooting a 13-year-old dirt bike rider in the
>> > back because he blocked the roadway.
>> > 	The Chester County jury convicted Fernando Garcia of third degree
>> > murder in the August 1991 death of Thomas Mumma.
>> > 	According to testimony Mumma was riding home on a country road when
>> > he was approached by two carloads of teens going to a barbecue. Mumma,
>> > apparently by accident, pulled into the middle of the road, forcing the
>> > cars to swerve and brake.
>> > 	As Mumma sped off, Garcia climbed out of a car, took aim with a .22-
>> > caliber pistol and fired, striking him in the back.
>> > 	Garcia faces 10 to 20 years in prison when he comes up for
>> > sentencing. No sentencing date has been set.
>
>I would think it should be second degree as Garcia had to have known the
>possible consequence of his actions.  I'll see if I can find more info on
>the incident for the group.

I studied a similar case which occurred in Pennsylvania, and I know
that first degree murder there requires a clear intent to kill.
Second degree is very similar (sorry, I don't know the exact
difference).  While it is possible that this scumball intended to kill
the kid (and not just hurt him), this would be difficult or impossible
to establish beyond a reasonable doubt.  In fact, in this other case,
the defendant was acquited of first degree murder despite far more
telling evidence (multiple gunshot wounds to the back of the head, at
close range).  He could still get at least ten years in prison for
third degree.

This should probably be followed up in misc.legal.

John_Ampe@att.com
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Let's be careful out there
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 21:51:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <BuKM73.9vq.2@cs.cmu.edu> moore+@CS.CMU.EDU (Dale Moore) writes:
>
>	WEST CHESTER, Pa. (UPI) -- A 20-year-old Montgomery County man has
>been convicted of fatally shooting a 13-year-old dirt bike rider in the
>back because he blocked the roadway.
>	The Chester County jury convicted Fernando Garcia of third degree
>murder in the August 1991 death of Thomas Mumma.

Yep, wouldn't you know it. A man takes out a gun, aims it at someone's back
and then kills them and it is declared _third_ degree murder.

I know I'll really rush to West Chester, PA.

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: akkana@netcom.com (Akkana Peck)
Subject: Re: riding against traffic; bikepaths
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 02:54:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <+6qnb=#.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>In article <1992Sep6.150717.7714@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rvanderb@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rian van der Borgt) writes:
>>I could understand that a motorist doen't expect a cyclist (not many
>>cyclists in traffic) but isn't it a bit strange that a cyclist
>>doesn't excpect a motorist?
>
>Well, it's a matter of bike paths crossing seldom used roads.
>The bicyclist gets into the habit of not seeing cars on these
>roads and then gets into the habit of not expecting cars. Then
>on some occassion he expects no car when one is there and --splat!

That's the problem I have with the "bike paths are dangerous" argument.
If the accident occurred because the bicyclist "got into the habit of not
expecting cars" and shot out across the road in front of a car, I just
don't see the logic in blaming it on the bike path and proclaiming that
all bike paths are dangerous.

Maybe bike paths cause bad habits.  That doesn't make them dangerous --
it just means that cyclists should remember to stay alert when on paths
just as they would on the road.

	...Akkana (watch for traffic *everywhere*, including off-road)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: les@sail.stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 09:33:20 GMT


(Sigh.)  Earlier Tom Kunich fabricated the following statement:
>Les said in so many words that the United States was _run_ by the oil
>companies. This isn't just incorrect, it's a cheap shot.

After I pointed out that this is a fabrication, he now offers a
quotation of mine to the effect that gasoline taxes have been kept
low in this country to benefit the petroleum/motor vehicle
establishment.  Nowhere did I say that the United States is _run_ by
the oil companies.  Tom takes a single sentence out of cantext and
tries to pretend that it says something else.

I'm tired of Tom's sleazy drivel.  I've avoided having a kill file
till now, but the time has come.  Unfortunately I don't know of a good
way to get rid of postings from the other folks who are still trying
to straighten him out.  Of course, over time they too will figure out
that he have almost nothing to contribute other than gross distortions
and fabricated nonsense.

Tom concludes his rebuttal as follows:
>As I said, that was both untrue and a cheap shot.

Let me acknowledge that the field of untruths and cheap shots in
one in which Tom is an expert.

Bye-bye, Tom!  I trust that you will continue to find someone to read
your stuff.  Will the last person out please turn off the light?

--
Les Earnest                                  Phone:  415 941-3984
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu              USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les         Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Flush Flames (was: Gas subsidies and taxes)
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:00:06
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: joeh@ami.sps.mot.com's message of 30 Aug 92 23:16:16 GMT

>> If you want to know the _major_ polution hazard in the world
>> just try thinking the next time you flush!
> This is absolute b.s.  Unless your body is producing some
> pretty sensational waste products . . .

=o= Where's Mark Slagle when we need him?  His theory (as folks
may recall with unbridled glee), is that cycling causes folks
to eat more and excrete more, culminating in perhaps the hugest
source of sensational waste products in human history!

=o= I don't know where these crackpot ideas come from.  Perhaps
there's a version of the Rush Limbaugh Show that only appears on
car radios? :-)
    <_Jym_>
From: Lyle_Scheer@NeXT.com (Lyle Scheer)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Cycling as a sport (was Re: Women and Cycling)
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:32:51 GMT
Reply-To: Lyle_Scheer@NeXT.com (Lyle Scheer)

In article <+8yn9n.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
> I must admit that I have continuously said that until blacks
> are involved in the sport, "it ain't no sport" and I still stand by
> that. If you don't have general interest in the sport then it is
> just another America's Cup fiasco or racing slot cars.

Huh?  Since when did public acknowledgement of an activity make it a sport?

Personally, I call it a sport if you have fun and get some exercise.

--
                             E-Mail (NeXTmail accepted): Lyle_Scheer@NeXT.com
                    "Character is what you are in the dark." -Buckaroo Banzai
"A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men." -Willy Wonka
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc