HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: pressure those nasty Bay Area cable companies!
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:00:06 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink.COM) wrote:
}>, by cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio):
}# walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
}# |>, by markc@smsc.sony.com (Mark Corscadden):
}# |> 2)  Are you sick *enough* that you're interested in taking political
}# |>     action to force the offending companies to mend their ways?
}# |No, I'm sick of people suggesting governmental intrusion
}# |everytime a business does something that they do not like.
}
}> If cable companies were normal businesses, I'd agree with you.
}> But in every place I've gotten cable service, the cable provider
}> was a monopoly.  I couldn't punish one provider for bad service
}> by going to another one.  A political solution is possibly the
}> only one in this case.
}
}Darn it, you've got me thinking again.  There's only one Indian
}restaurant in all of Rohnert Park.  I'm sick and tired of this
}monopoly, and their high prices.  Political action anyone?

What is interesting about this is the situtation in the San Jose area
in California.  There are several cable companies in the area, including
Heritage, Viacom, and Southbay Cablevision.  And for some reason I've
not quite figured out, over the past 10 years, I've been passed back
and forth between these companies, without my having a say in the matter
(and each time I was `moved' to a new company, there was a price increase).
Now, if these companies are all here, why can't I choose the one I want?

It seems there's a minor law or two that keeps me from doing this.  Guess
the governemnt is already intruding, to maintain the monoply.  It might
be interesting to see what whould happen if the phone companies plan to
broadcast through their lines ever comes about.

Mark Runyan
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: pressure those nasty Bay Area cable companies!
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:23:35 GMT

In article <184837@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
    >In article <13824@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton
    >Cramer) writes:
    >>Which Book? You mean _Das Kapital_? It certainly is
    >>responsible (indirectly) for more murders than any other book
    >>in history.
    >>
    >Given the Crusades, the Hundred Years War, the Inquistion,
    >the bulk of persecution of the rest of the Middle Ages, the
    >subjugation and genocide of native cultures in the new and
    >third worlds under the guise of "Christian Enlightenment",
    >and any number of other historical atrocities based upon
    >belief in the Bible, Clayto, I'd say that your interest in
    >gays has caused you to lose your once strong grasp of
    >history.
    >
    >The Bible beats Das Kapital hands down.
    >
    >George Lambert

Eh? Given the less than 2,000,000 population of the American Indians,
the few tens of thousands killed in the Crusades, the perhaps 500,000
killed in the Hundred Years war, the Inquisition a mere 1,000 or so
Jews or suspected Jews, these all add up to less than 4,000,000.

Tell you what, we'll double it to 8,000,000 just for you.

Now, the Soviets had killed 3,000,000 Kulaks, 1,500,000 enemies of
the revolution from 1917-1927, 12-16,000,000 in general liquidation.

The Chinese communists have done much better, with estimates from a low of
30,000,000 to a high of 150,000,000. Not to mention such yummies as the
ritualistic cannibalism of "enemies of the state" which were reported last
week.


In my book, 50,000,000-200,000,000 over a span of 60 years beats
4-8,000,000 over many centuries.

You lose again ...



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cable TV: Disorganized Crime, Was: Re: dangerous group
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:54:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <a5U003SRc7gk00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:
> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# }Have you considered that the small advantages of some cable channels,
# }don't justify having cable service?  I can't imagine what so many
# }people find so worthwhile about watching TV, that it justifies
# }paying so much money to cable companies.
# 
# }Used to have cable.  Now I have an antenna.  Even better, I have a
# }daughter who, much of the time, prefers curling up with a good book
# }instead of being mesmerized by the boob tube.  (My son may take a
# }little longer.)
# 
# }TV is the opiate of the masses.
# 
# Why is it that anytime someone starts a thread complaining about cable
# TV service, a few people find it necessary to try to sidetrack the
# discussion into this completely irrelevant area of whether or not TV
# is worthwhile?

Because the argument for government regulation of business is based
on the necessity of that business.  TV is not only not a necessity,
it is arguable whether it even qualifies as an unmitigated good.  I
would like nothing more than for cable TV to get so expensive that
no one bothered with it, and spent a little more time reading, instead.
Illiteracy is the enemy of individual rights, and the friend of
democracy.

# Clayton, I'm very happy that you and your daughter do so much reading.
# But where in hell do you get the right to pass judgement on how other
# people decide to spend their leisure time?  If I enjoy watching TV,
# and I want the services that cable TV provides, what damned business
# is that of yours?

I'm not a liberal -- I'm not going to tell you what you MUST do.
But I will certainly express my disapproval.  This is one of the
great failings of liberals -- they insist that freedom isn't just
freedom from coercion, but freedom from disapproval.  This is why
liberals create the framework for the totalitarian state, where
everything that is not prohibited, is required.

# If you want to start a general discussion of the "evils" of TV and
# whether or not it is the "opiate of the masses", then by all means
# do so, but do it on a seperate thread.  Leave this one to those who
# might just want to discuss the *original* topic of whether or not
# something can be done about bad cable service.
# 
# --James Preston

Something CAN be done.  Stop buying bad cable service, and demand
that your local government stop franchising cable TV service.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Sounds like Democracy to me. (Was Re: Well, even Adolph had to start at thge bottom ...
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 09:11:02 GMT

In article <1ialmkINN9nf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
    >In article <1993Jan4.233744.1311@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>SJMN today:
    >>
    >>Andy Pugno, 19-year old Political Science major at UC-Davis,
    >>self described as conservative and a Republican, is facing a
    >>recall for his seat on the executive council of the
    >>Associated Students of the University of California.
    >>
    >>He is being recall -- but NOT for any wrong doing or any
    >>illegal acts.
    >...
    >>Seems he voted Politically Incorrectly.
    >>...
    >>Andy voted against two bills - one that would give the campus
    >>"Sexual Assault Advisory Board" the power to author
    >>legislation. And he voted against a bill to ban ROTC.
    >>
    >>His opponents charge that the sexual assault vote indicated
    >>that Andy was "against the best interests of female students"
    >>and that his ROTC vote was against "the best interests of
    >>gays and lesbians".
    >>
    >>Again, note that Andy has been the leading vote getter for
    >>two elections.
    >...
    >Bottom Line- there is nothing wrong with attempting to recall
    >someone based upon their voting record, we put people there
    >according to their political bent- and we expect them to hold
    >up their end of the bargin.
    >
    >We attempt to do this all of time- check bounchers, sexual
    >harassers, sexual misconduct- most in political office known
    >that a recall takes - money and energy that most people do
    >not want to get involved in. They either ride out the storm,
    >or the resign under pressure from associates and the party.

So a proper and legitimate VOTE is the same as check bouncers, sexual
harassers, sexual misconduct?

Was this a Soviet "vote"? Was Andy only supposed to mark the "CORRECT"
item on the ballot? And the fact that he checked the Politically Incorrect
box makes him the same as a, say, sexual harasser?

I didn't think you'd be so obvious about this. Interesting.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: pressure those nasty Bay Area cable companies!
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:18:46 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <ui5nqok@zola.esd.sgi.com>, by cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio):

# In article <13819@optilink.COM>, walsh@optilink.COM writes:
# |Darn it, you've got me thinking again.  There's only one Indian
# |restaurant in all of Rohnert Park.  I'm sick and tired of this
# |monopoly, and their high prices.  Political action anyone?

> If state & federal regulations enforce an Indian restaurant
> monopoly on you, then yeah.  Go for it.  Get your Congressman
> to work at overturning that monopoly.

Good point.  Many communities have cable exclusivity because
of governmental graft.  But then does one really need cable?
Do I really need Indian food?

> Did you have some kind of actual point to make?

Yes, that there are alternatives.  Instead of Indian food,
we'll try Thai next time.  Instead of cable, we receive TV
signals directly.
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Who John Doe (and the anonymous company) is ...
Date: 9 Jan 93 19:50:17 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1993Jan6.022905.29588@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil
Ronzone) wrote:
> 
> ...Now, the true story.
> 
> ...The "company" is Stanford University.
> 
> John Doe is Allan Cox, a 60-year old Stanford professor at the time.
> 
> He killed himself on 27-Jan-87.
> 
> "Professor" Allan Cox had seduced a son of a Ph.D. student that Cox was
> supervising. As any Ph.D. candidate can tell, your supervisor can be more
> important than a boss.
> 
> Stanford issued NO know public OR private apology!

I see no particular reason for Stanford to apologize.  An employer is not
responsible for every action of its employees.

> [several examples of Stanford eulogizing the man as a great educator, etc.]

Totally disgusting.  But hardly novel -- villains of all kinds die and are
eulogized every day, by all sorts of institutions including great
universities.  Why are you suddenly so exercised about this particular
case, after *six years*?

> Now, consider, JUST consider, if the victim was a 14-year old girl of a single
> mother. The feminist howls of outrage would STILL be heard swirling across
> the intellectually barren fields of the Politically Correct minefields
> of Stanford ....

Now consider, JUST consider, if the professor's offense had been a pattern
of viciously bigoted behavior toward non-white, non-Christian, female, and
homosexual students and employees, and suppose he had committed suicide
when he was about to be publicly disgraced for it, and suppose the
President and the faculty had stood up and officially said "He was bigoted
scum, and it's a good thing he's dead."

What would we be hearing from you about that one, Phil?

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!
From: mhi@wet.UUCP (Philip E. Murphy)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Is this wrong, or what?
Date: 4 Jan 93 14:29:29 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco

You are correct sir.  The company should have abandoned any atempts to glorify
"John Doe" pending the investigation.  In life you cannot take away achieve-
ments from an individual.  But if an individual is found guilty, other than
inuendo, of a crime such as you mentioned, then the corporation is guilty of
being rather one-sided - especially to the father or mother of the child
molested.


Phil Murphy
-- 

Phil Murphy                                          (415) 285-2595 voice 
P.O. Box 460084 San Francisco,CA 94146-0084          (415) 285-8213 fax
From: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Why Do We Have Separate Restrooms? (WAS Re: Gays, the military...)
Date: 5 Jan 93 02:59:07 GMT
Reply-To: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bendenweyr

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> In article <106070@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
|>     >Contrary to what you believe, I don't think most men would
|>     >give a shit whether there were gay men in the showers with
|>     >them. Perhaps it is just a projection of your own illogic
|>     >that you think this is some vastly held prejudice.
|> 
|> As there are not any polls that I am aware of (on this subject), then I must
|> ask one objective question:
|> 
|> Why then have those professional male athletes (that are homosexual):
|>   1. Entered their professional sports profession.
|>   2. THEN announced their homosexuality
|>   3. Then complained about unease and a marked difference in treatment
|>      in that very locker room setting?

Professional male athletes are not the general population.  I would
not be surprised by either statement - that the general population
doesn't care, and that athletes do, nor would I be surprised at both
being true at the same time.

				...jim
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Is this wrong, or what?
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:19:47 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan5.085004.10951@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>BTW - I'd send the following joke to r.h.f., but, A. It may have already
>been submitted, and B. You probably wouldn't see it as a joke.


>Why did the chicken cross the road?

>Because the Western Eurocentric Male dominated human-race entered its
>world, removed its culture and religated it to a life of domestic 
>subservience in which it was forced to perform such tasks as crossing the
>road (which is symbolic of humanity's rape of the natural world) for the 
>sole purpose of entertaining it's oppressors.  However, the fowl would
>no longer stand for such injustice, and refusing the derogatory title of
>"chicken", is rebelling against a system that has forced it to take part
>in such things as contemplating whether it preceded its own child, the egg.
>As such it needed to carry it's message to other suffering fowl, who all
>happened to be on the other side of the road.
	
	
	
>Brawwwwkkk bawwk bawkkk .....


Phil, you already submitted this galline witticism several times...
to BA.POLITICS...

I've seen this almost as frequently as "Gawd, I love the smell of napalm
in the morning!"...
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Is this wrong, or what?
Date: 4 Jan 1993 08:17:06 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Distribution: ba
Reply-To: mike@fionn (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

Phil Ronzone writes:
#>last five years. It is so unbelievable that I'd thought I ask if others
#>have the same sense of outrage that I have.

#>....[Suicide] John Doe was to be arrested for child molestation. He had been molesting
#>the 14-year old daughter of one of his employees for 5 years.

#>Now, what enraged me was the attitude of the corporation.
 ....[including such things as]
#>5 months later, the corporation, as many corporations do, issued a
#>company medal with John Doe's picture -- the medal being issued to
#>others with one of the criterion being [work with young people!!!!!]!.

#>I believe this is hyperbole, but WHY would a corporation honor such a
#>dishonorable person.

I can't answer your question, but I certainly share your outrage.
Such things do happen.

Many years ago I happened to visit the island of Capri, which is south
& west of Naples, Italy.  It's the product of some of the local
vulcanism, so it's basically vertical with a small beach, & a village
or two built up along the steep slopes at the sea side.  My visit was
back in the days when that "I, Claudius" BBC TV show had first been
shown, so I hiked out to the Emperor Tiberius' ruined villa on one end
of the island -- it had been featured in one of the episodes.  As I
remember it there's a plain or anyway an agricultural area in the
middle of the island that I had to cross, and in coming back from the
villa I didn't quite retrace my trip out -- this time I passed the
"Emperor Tiberius Primary School" (I've forgotten the actual Italian).
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Name the company or shut up
Date: 6 Jan 93 02:00:41 GMT
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.

In article <93005.40025.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>In <1993Jan5.092018.12391@netcom.com>, Phil Ronzone writes:
>
>>Why? A man molests a minor. He kills himself. The company does not
>>apologize. It lauds the molestor.
>
>>Why is the name of the company important? Why?
>
>I'm going to receive major flamage for saying this, but I agree with you on
>this one.  The politically correct types don't despise racism and sexism as
>much as they despise the *politics* of those who commit it.  That's why you
>never see any complaints from groups like NOW when a Kennedy mistreats a
>woman.  But if Clarence Thomas--a man who believes in (generally) less
>government, which the PCers despise--is even alleged to have committed minor
>offenses (let's face it, harassment is minor compared to rape and manslaughter)
>then all hell breaks loose.

Pure B.S.  As has been pointed out ad infinitum here and elsewhere, the
most recent example, Packwood, was most definitely "PC" on most women's
issues.  Sure helped protect him, didn't it?  Oh, and remember Gary Hart?
That liberal, PC media bunch just let him right off the hook last election,
didn't they?

>Why is molestation of a young girl (and the corporate attitude
>about it) acceptable just because the company in question is good and liberal?

You're really reaching here.  It's a big leap from "What is the name of
the company?" to "Child molestation is acceptable".

1) If you folks learned that accused=guilty go be happy with it, but not
   all of us accept that particular judicial perspective.

2) Knowing the name of the company might simply help verify the incident in
   question.  We're still waiting on this one.

3) Twisting everything into a "PC vs. non-PC" argument is becoming the
   funnier and funnier each time.  Please keep it up.

jb
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Why Do We Have Separate Restrooms? (WAS Re: Gays, the military...)
Date: 4 Jan 93 16:27:19 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan2.100213.293@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <105795@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>Well, admittedly it does go against engrained traditions, but
>>we've seen that co-ed dorms can exist peacefully at
>>universities, and even co-ed showers. So it IS possible. Sort
>>of like nudists becoming accustomed to the sight of other
>>people naked. Nudity and sex are very much conflated in our
>>society.

>No, no, no! I'm not talking about VOLUNTARY choices that people make, like
>selecting a coed dorm or going to a nudist camp. Right now, tonight, all
>bathrooms, showers, etc. are unisex.

But (unless they were drafted) they made a voluntary choice to enlist in
the armed services.

No, they shouldn't be FORCED. That could be handled by screening and the
appropriate contract-signing.

Contrary to what you believe, I don't think most men would give a shit
whether there were gay men in the showers with them. Perhaps it is just
a projection of your own illogic that you think this is some vastly
held prejudice.

>I think a lot of people would get upset, don't you?

No, not really. Just a small minority who would have trouble vocalizing
the "rationale" for their fears.

>What if we just made the military facilities unisex? The typical showeroom
>is now male/female. No cubicles, no privacy, just all in one.
>Do you think women and men in the military would like that?

You shouldn't force it, like I said.

>However, the coercive State must be blind. And, as you nearly hit the nail on
>the head, our "cultural norms" are also very subjective. Although they
>may be almost arbitary in origins, they, like the arbitary choice of
>which side of the road to drive on, are EXTREMELY important to adhere to.

That's a postulate if I've ever heard one. Since this "vexes" you so much,
why do you believe it? What benefit does conformity have?

What's more---how can you be an atheist and a moral absolutist at the same
time? Where does the authority come from?

>Homosexuality is a sexual context -- ask any straight man that has walked into
>a homosexual bar without knowing it -- and most men do NOT want to be part of
>that sexual context.

I don't think that "most" is accurate, unless you're talking about teens
and men in their early twenties, who (surprise, surprise) are also the
demographic groups who bash gay men the most frequently.

I think that anyone who is secure in their sexual orientation doesn't mind
being around others of differing orientations. If you're right, it's very
sad that so many people are so insecure.

It's even more the pity that many men don't pick up a more female socialization
until late in their lives.

Just ask young women about their views on homosexuality---they are
significantly more likely to respond with positive characterizations than
young men are.

Brian
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: It is wrong to judge without facts-(was Re: I am a great skeptic on 2nd-hand stories
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:52:47 GMT

In article <1icj80INNnmq@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
    >Was it important to know the name of the company that caused
    >the Valdez oil spill?
    >
    >If it felt that someone or some entity has done something
    >wrong- either morally or legally, it is difficult to make
    >judgements and take actions if one does not know who or what
    >they are judging.

Thank you.

Very much.

In your defense, I don't think you even realize what monstrous logic you
are supporting.

If a man murders, we do NOT take into account his race, or his family
connections, or wealth. We decide if he is guilty or not based on
what he objectively did.

WHAT POSSIBLE FUCKING DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF Exxon or Shell or Phil's
Oil Company caused the Valdez oil spill? WHAT?

Without objective law, you're nothing but a herd of fascists.

A crime is a crime. What possible difference does it make what you name
(or family connections or politics make) is?



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

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