waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C5J8wI.IGK@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes: > In <1993Apr15.045651.6892@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu sez: >>In article <1993Apr14.135227.8579@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes: >>> >>>	No, I'm saying any long term investor (the ones likely to have large >>>capital gains) would be foolish to sell in order to avoid a tax hike that a) >>>might disappear in any given year and b) be overcome in a year or two by >>>accumlated gains. >> >>To which my response is--so what?  Not all people who pay capital gains >>taxes are long term investors.  More than enough of them aren't for there >>to be huge blip whenever capital gains taxes get raised. >>   I never said that *everyone* would find this advantageous.  I said that >>more than enough would for the result to be readily noticeable and distort >>"trends". >  > Even if Brett's eventual-return figures were correct -- and they > clearly weren't -- he'd still be wrong about the cause for the '86 > blip because he fails to consider 2 basic factors:  	You misunderstand.  I'm not trying to prove a *cause* for anything.  Merely pointing out that Ted's assertion that the "blip" in revenues was "caused" by selling to avoid the tax can't be proven.  > 1) As Ted notes, not everyone is a long-term investor.  One might find > oneself, as I did in late 1986, anticipating expenses in the near term > that require selling off holdings.  Given the choice between waiting a > few weeks (and taking an extra tax hit) or selling in December with > preferential tax treatment, only a fool would choose the former.  	Not disputed.  > 2) The fact that Brett can now construct _post hoc_ calculations of > what would have been more beneficial to investors is in many respects > beside the point.  There was plenty of _Money_-style advice given to > unsophisticated investors in late 1986 to "sell now and save on > taxes."  In case anyone missed it, there was no shortage of similar > advice late last year (in the NYTimes, e.g.), even though that advice > was based not on the foregone conclusion of enacted law (as in 1986), > but merely on the *assumption* that Clinton would raise tax rates > (without capping CG taxes, contrary to the current proposal).  	It works for any situation.  If you believe the market is going up, don't sell.  	If believe it's not, sell.  But then you'd be selling anyways, wouldn't you?  	So where is the evidence that a large number of people suddenly decided that the higher taxes meant they should sell before the year was out?  	There isn't any.  	Ted's saying that the increase over the previous year is "proof" of that proposition, but I'm saying you can't know that the trend of increasing capital gains revenues wouldn't account for a lot of that increase. 	1986 was the height of the housing boom, remember.  People were "trading up" like mad.  > It's nice to think that investors always behave in their optimal > economic interest.  Like assuming weightless ropes and frictionless > pulleys, though, this sort of thinking often fails to describe > accurately what happens in the real world.  	Indeed.
In article <C5s5D2.4uu@newcastle.ac.uk>, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes...   >  :So we try to ensure that the process of deciding whether to introduce :third parties isn't random.  As Steve said above, there are examples :where third parties *are* less ignorant or corrupt than the two :primary parties; should this knowledge not be able to help?  Of course it helps,  but only if the decision to involve third parties is the primary partis' to make.  A corrupt and ignorant third party isn't going to say,  "we're corrupt and ignorant,  we'll stay out of this". Pointing out that they are corrupt and ignorant won't help,  they either won't believe you or won't care.   >  :>  It's impossible (or at least beyond my abilities) to formulate a rule :>that will always tell whether the involvement of a third party would be :>good or bad,  but there's one that seems better than any other I've ever :>heard suggested:  voluntary good,  mandatory bad.  That is,  a third :>party should involve itself in a transaction ONLY at the request of :>the primary participants. >  :So we *don't* formulate a rule that will always tell; we try to use :knowledge about other properties of situations.  To some of us, it :appears that trying always to apply "voluntary good, mandatory bad" :is not only less than optimal, it is in some circumstances seriously :damaging.  The interesting question is to characterize those :circumstances as best we can.  Look,  somebody has to have the power to decide whether a third party will regulate your transactions or not.  That somebody is going to be either you or the third party.  You can argue until you are blue in the face that regulators shouldn't get involved (in fact,  people have tried this),  they won't listen.    The fundamental question you have to ask is,  whose decision is it whether or not to involve regulators, ours or theirs?  After you've answered thed first question,  you can try to move on to such questions as "should regulators be involved" and,  if so,  "what regulations are appropriate?"  Although with your answer to the first question,  the second and third are taken out of your hands.
In article <1qt61e$d7e@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (B writes... >In a previous article, garrett@Ingres.COM (THE SKY ALREADY FELL. NOW WHAT?) says: >>In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com>, blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)         writes... >>>	I strongly urge you to consider moving any savings you  >>>	have overseas, into protected bank accounts, while  >>>	you are still able. >>>  >>Have you? >  >        Went to the Post Office on Friday, got my passport apps in. >        My savings have already been converted. >  Bye. >   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has          Garrett Johnson  come." --Tussman                                           Garrett@Ingres.com "The probability of someone watching you is proportional to the stupidity of your action." - Unknown
In article <15427@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: | |> # 1) So what? |>  |> Homosexuals lie about the 10% number to hide the disproportionate |> involvement of homosexuals in child molestation.  They also lie |> about "10%" to keep politicians scared. |>   Back your statments with proof, or shut up.  |> # 2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers |> #    gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of |> #    us then this is an event unprecidented in history... |>  |> But many of the people who will be marching aren't homosexuals, but |> other members of the leftist agenda. |>   Again, back your statements or shut up.  |> # #The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners. |> # #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3. |> #  |> # Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners.... |>  |> Not surprising.  Remember, that study includes homosexuals as well. |>   Hmm...  Tell me, did you go to the Mickey Mouse school of logic?  You have just stated that there are not many homosexuals as Kinsey reported in his survey (and the surveys of the Kinsey Institute since).  Then you say that the reason many young people are promiscuous is because homosexuals form a large part of that group, or there are some homosexuals whose lives  consist of having sex, with no gaps for eating &c.  Using *your* logic it would seem to suggest that on average gay men have about 2000 partners each a week!  Try to think through your arguments carefully.  Or then again, not, because I like to laugh every now and then.  |> # #Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson, |> # #and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that |> # #homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general |> # #male population.   |> #  |> # And what did this study show for number of sexual contacts for those |> # who said they where homosexual? Or is that number to inconvient for |> # you.... |>  |> It wasn't published. |>   Hence the argument cannot be resolved using this data.  Next point, please.  |> # #It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for |> # #straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically |> # #how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are. |> #  |> # Fuck off |>  |> Typical homoseuxal response. |>  |>   This depends on the premise that there are only three types of behaviour: gay, bi and hetero.  This has yet to be proved.  See an earlier post about the Kinsey Institute of grading.  This, although rough, seems more logical.  Also you use "this would show", defining a fact and not an assumption.  Again, back your  statements or shut up.  >  |> --  |> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine! |> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
In article <1993Apr22.165729.18393@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes: > In <15511@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: # ## Sigh.  You're absolutely right.  We have no political power whatsoever.  #  # #If only that were true.  In California, homosexuals have enough power # #to impose their morals on others. #  # The only "moral" we're imposing is one which you supposedly embrace already: # every human being's right to be treated as such.  I don't expect to be hired based on my sexual orientation.  If someone decides he wants a gay-only staff of employees, that's his business. I won't force him to hire heterosexuals; please don't force me to hire homosexuals.  # ## Therefore, we should be oppressed and ignored and denigrated, right?  I #  # #You aren't oppressed in California. #  # But it's OK to oppress us, that's what you're saying!  No.  I'm saying it's none of the government's business what two consenting adults do in private.  You don't believe that, unfortunately.  # ## certainly hope you don't have an SO, sir, because if she heard how # ## disparaging you are towards political minorities, and if she had any shred # ## of self-respect, she'd be out the door. #  # #Why do you keep insulting women and blacks by comparing them to # #homosexuals? #  # This sort of crap makes me so fucking sick that I can't even bring myself to # touch it.  You're a fuckwit with no perspective, no valid life experience, # and no true knowledge of the human condition.  I see no point in trying to # convince you politely that we're not all like the ones you've met, because # you're showing no willingness at all to be open-minded enough to accept that # your stupid generalizations have exceptions.  You are an intellectual waste, # and the reason you believe the worst of homosexuals is that you bring out # the worst in them. #  # ----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!  And you are yet another reminder of the emotional instability of homosexuals.
Here is a press release from the Reserve Officers Association.   Reserve Officers Say Demographics Ignored in Nominations to Close Naval, Marine Reserve Centers  To: National Desk, Defense Writer  Contact: Herbert M. Hart of the Reserve Officers Association of           the United States, 202-479-2258     WASHINGTON, April 13 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Reserve Officers Association of the United States has alerted the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission that the services failed to give sufficient weight to demographics in recommendations made to close 56 Naval and Marine Corps Reserve centers.    In letters to the closure commission and to all 86 members of Congress with affected locations in their constituencies, including Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, ROA charged that the developers of the Navy-Marine list ignored demographics of the civilian population, particularly prior service personnel.    ROA's executive director, Maj. Gen. Evan L. Hultman, AUS (Ret.), suggested "concern that the only plausible alternative is that they are intentionally attempting to foreclose the Naval Reserve components from maintaining even today's relatively low level of participation in their parent service's Total Force of the future."    He asked the commission "to remove from consideration all locations without sufficient and convincing demographic data to warrant approval of the requested action."    "Only a few of the 56 Naval and Marine Corps Reserve installations on this list are large enough to have a significant impact on the community, if closed," wrote Hultman.  "The major issue is the cumulative impact of moving or closing such a large percentage of the existing locations."    Hultman reminded the commission, "The fact that the vast majority of the Reserve installations on this list do not come close to meeting the minimal requirements for consideration in this process certainly supports the thesis" that these actions are simply an attempt to foreclose a substantial role for the Navy and Marine Corps Reserve.    ROA also noted "that at the end of the 1960s, when the number of Naval Reservists was approximately the same as today, there were 480 Naval Reserve facilities.  If the Navy recommendations are approved, there will be less than 200 Naval Reserve facilities."    Facilities on the list include seven Naval Air Stations ranging from South Weymouth, Mass., to Alameda, Calif., 28 Naval Reserve Centers in Macon, Ga., and Parkersburg, W.Va., to Missoula and Great Falls. Mont.  Naval/Marine Corps Reserve Centers include four in San Francisco, Fort Wayne, Ind., Billings, Mont., and Abilene, Texas.    A major Marine Reserve Center on the list is that at El Toro, Calif., plus six others.  -30-
In article <1993Apr19.071021.14349@spdcc.com> urso@spdcc.com (Stephen Chappell) writes: >In article <C5Kt0y.3M3@world.std.com> bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw) writes: >>I believe the MOW plans and handing out some sort of wristband thingy, and  >>basing their count on those.  I see two problems with this.  One, can they  >>get *everybody* to take one (and only one)?  Two, they couldn't possibly have >>been able to choose a color/design that won't clash with *somebody's* outfit! >> >...and Three.  The ads I've seen for the wristbands indicate they're >charging $5 a wristband.  As I've seen them, the wristbands look like >clear plastic with multi-coloured "rainbow" threads in them labeled >"1993 March on Washington    999999" (the "999999" being your particular >wristband number). >  >Certainly not *everyone* at the March on Washington will be willing to >shell out five bucks for a piece of plastic.   I bought mine at the MOW storefront. Its not plastic, its woven material.  but I think you miss the point. its not about the five bucks in your pocket, its about supporting the march and helping to pay for all the printed materail and scehdulkes and organisation and...  all leading up to the literal *birth* of Queer visibility in this country.  up to this point all our news coverage has been driven by events thatb happen to us.  this event is happening by our direct action. of course the last MOW was the same thing but they ignored us. I guess that was just labor pains. perhaps they will ignore us again, in which case we will come in even largeer numbers next time.  Lst night in DC there were so many queers out and about you could hardly get in any place. I suspect thatb over the next two days that will become exponentially larger.  To my mind this is a physical bsuting down of the collective closet of queer invisibility.  the five bucks is insignificant.  LUX ./. owen
In article <9304182100.AA08789@poly.math.cor>, harelb@math.cornell.edu writes: >     ****************************************************** >     "IT IS A MATTER OF LOGIC that government-run systems are >     inefficient, and the fact that the highly bureaucratized private >     sector system in the US is vastly more inefficient is therefore >     irrelevant.    	Proof that the entire private sector is vastly more inefficient?  > It is, for example, of no relevance that Blue Cross >     of Massachusetts employs 6680 people, more than are employed in >     all of Canada's health programs, which insure 10 times as many >     people"  	Blue Cross is the government health insurance provider.  	Oops.  	[Ads for Z magazine deleted to Save the Earth]
In article <C5wx0u.II8@acsu.buffalo.edu> v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes: >In article <1993Apr22.010657.18469@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes... >>  >>I've come to learn to suspect anything in the American press about >>our "system".  If much or some of it were true, you'd have to take >>us for idiots for tolerating it.  And given that our insurance was >>installed during a period when there were only Liberal and Tory >>governments federally and provincially, and the socialists are still >>chafing, they would've pressed for real socialized medicine to fix >>things ... think about it.  After all, we are using the U.S. as a >>metric to make comparison ... both for keeping-up-with-the-Joneses >>as for confirming that we did something right. > >True, but remember that most of the Canadian-bashing exists because American >proponents of your system make it look like it walks on water. Even you don't >go that far.  Sorry, but I'd have to differ.  The Canadian-bashing wrt to the health  insurance system is largely with little evidence or prompting.  Having kept up with this debate on the net for some months, just about all the criticism of the Canadian system has misquoted or misinterpreted even the anti-Canadian propaganda put out by the American insurance industry and the AMA.    In a few cases, such as Mr. Case, the critiques are well-reasoned and worthy of response.  Most others are misinformed, illogical, or just plain dumb.  I don't think the same can be said of the "American proponents" of the Canadian system, much less of the Canadian proponents.  jsh
In article <1qn252INNot4@news.aero.org> helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) writes: >In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes: >> >>	If you look through this newsgroup, you should be  >>	able to find Clinton's proposed "Wiretapping" Initiative >                     ^^^^^^^^^ >>	for our computer networks and telephone systems. >> >>	This 'initiative" has been up before Congress for at least >>	the past 6 months, in the guise of the "FBI Wiretapping" >        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>	bill. > >What kind of brainless clod posted the above garbage? Would they be >so kind as to explain how this is "Clinton's" initiative, when it >has been before Congress for "at least the past 6 months"?      It is Clinton's initiative now.  He is pushing it hard     Aren't the liberals supposed to be concerned about privacy     rights?      If you want to know more about the wiretapping initiative,     read "1984" - it's in there, installed in every bedroom.   --  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu> azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes: >Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been >better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months? >  How about tell everyone what the hell they were doing there in the first place?  If we knew that, we'd be in a much better position to judge their actions. Until then, we can only speculate and develop nice conspiracy and/or police state stories.
From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:      Male sex survey: Gay activity low      A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough     examination of American men's sexual practices published since     the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2     percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and     1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.      The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday     by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than     the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional     wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.  The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners. The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3. Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
In article <C5sEGz.Mwr@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes... >  >In article <APM.93Apr20090558@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com>, apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) writes: >|>Path: dscomsa!dxcern!mcsun!uknet!pipex!uunet!think.com!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!apm >|>From: apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) >  >|>In article <1993Apr19.170353.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes: >|>   I note with insufficient emotion that amongst the five survivors of the  >|>   Waco debacle, there were two Brits and an Aussie. The Anglo-Saxon persona  >|>   really doesn't lend itself to martyrdom for a spurious messiah. >|> >|>I don't see how you draw that conclusion.  Around 20 of the 80 inside the >|>buildings were British (one quarter).  Two out of the eight (latest count I >|>heard) survivors were British (one quarter).  Anyhow, British doesn't equate >|>to  Anglo-Saxon. >|> >|>What exactly are you trying to say?  And why were there no fire-engines within >|>a mile of the compound? >  >Because the Gun loonies were firing on vehicles with 50mm amunition that >has a range of 3000 meters.     What crap, Phil. 50mm? Wrong. To give you a clue as to how big 50mm is, the  F-16 fighter aircraft have 20mm gattling guns used to shoot down other   aircraft. A 50mm gun would be somewhere in the `cannon' realm. They might  have had .50 calibre but definitely not 50mm.     <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>   Paul R. Busta	                                    Busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com  Salem,N.H.                                     603-894-3962
After the initial gun battle was over, they had 50 days to come out peacefully. They had their high priced lawyer, and judging by the posts here they had some public support. Can anyone come up with a rational explanation why the didn't come out (even after they negotiated coming out after the radio sermon) that doesn't include the Davidians wanting to commit suicide/murder/general mayhem?