Home ->
Apollo BBS ->
Apollo Archive Index ->
April 1988 -> April 16
Apollo BBS Archive - April 16, 1988
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* $tatus Club Bulletin Board entered *=*
Message: 3316
Author: $ Alan Hamilton
Category: Rebuttal
Subject: Taxes
Date: 04/15/88 Time: 20:05:52
It should be noted that Mecham also favored a tax increase. He didn't
call it that, but regardless of the name, it would have raised my state
income tax 74%. He also favored a tax on soft drinks, which is, in a way, a
tax on food. I know several people that survive on little but Coke Classic.
Having the recall election would have at least cleared the air about how
much support Mecham actually had. Other than that, there was no reason to
hold it, since an officer may not be recalled if she has not been in office
six months.
I think Mofford has shown a commitment to getting corruption out of
government. After all, she is getting rid of the Mecham apointees.
It is going to be hard for her to deal with the $300+ million deficit
left by the Mecham administration. And remember, Mecham himself, by blaming
the $100 million deficit that existed when he went into office on Babbit,
established that budget deficits are the fault of the governor.
/
/ * / Alan
* *
Message: 3318
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Lippard/libertarians
Date: 04/16/88 Time: 00:16:04
When John Dentinger talks about who is "better in bed," keep in mind that he
is a homosexual.
Message: 3319
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Question?
Subject: Paul
Date: 04/16/88 Time: 00:19:38
How does anyone at the Heritage Foundation (or the Reason Foundation or the
Cato Institute for that matter) stand to benefit financially by privatizing
the USPS? So far all we have heard out of you is innuendo; let us have some
facts--if there are any.
Also, if supporters of privatization are all "ultra conservative...mega-rich
friends of Ronnie," how do you explain the fact that The New Republic (a
liberal magazine) endorsed it in a recent editorial?
Message: 3320
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Hawley
Date: 04/16/88 Time: 00:21:03
You complain that the only benefit of the AT&T breakup has been a decrease
in long-distance rates, but that local rates have gone up. Surely you are
aware that local phone companies are still regulated monopolies.
Message: 3321
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Answer!
Subject: Last
Date: 04/16/88 Time: 07:40:41
Yes, I do. But the local companies use the, "But we're looosing money on
our local business. So we neeeeeed a 150% increase, or we just won't be
able to operate." The price decrease on LD in no way makes up the loss on
local service. The charge for phone installation and repairs is exorbitant.
With the breakup of AT&T it is also hard sometimes to figure out who
provides what services. The breakup forced some of the Baby Bells to become
more efficent. (No more domino playing all night for AT&T employees.) How
many people are saving money after the breakup?
Message: 3322
Author: $ Jim Lippard
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: 3312
Date: 04/16/88 Time: 08:22:38
The above-referred-to message looks libelous.
Message: 3323
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: David
Date: 04/16/88 Time: 09:05:15
I only meant, that out of the two parties (demo & rep.) I usually go with
the Demo and am a registered Democrat. But as far as I'm conserned, both are
puppets on strings and no getting better in sight, so I'm looking into the
Libertarian party and it's looking better all the time. Don't get me wrong -
the Libs. do not have a chance in hell in this century at least. It would
take years to even get a few of their ideas into our working government. But
it certainly makes me personally feel better to know there is a party out
there with a tad of common sense towards government and freedom. =*--ANN--*=
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* outer COSmos Bulletin Board entered *=*
Message: 1221
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: the SYSOP Speaks
Subject: Commercial
Date: 04/15/88 Time: 16:20:02
Gemini Computer Inc. carries a large selection of Mouse pads
in many colors and sizes. It helps keep your mouse balls CLEAN
(ask Ann how importaint this is)... It also gives good tracking and low
wear on mouse and desktop.
From as small as 8 X 10 to as large as 15 X 19 in stock.
Cliff
P.S. Ann, that guy that was here TALKING.... He Liked you so much that we
gave him your address... He said he will visit you EVERY day!
Message: 1222
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Cliff/last
Date: 04/16/88 Time: 09:11:16
YEs, and he came here right after I got home and I told him I wasn't the one
to see, so gave him your address and instructions on how to get there! By
the way - you promiced me 'Arnie' and you gave me that guy instead! Why he
didn't even have 'cute buns' - in fact, I don't think he had any at all!!
As far as the mouse is conserned - I looked and you sold me a mouse with
only one ball! Do I get a rebate? Oh well, Sandy told me you were doing
alright with only one - so never mind. Ta ta =*--ANN--*=
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* Bulletin Board entered *=*
Message: 51768
Author: Apro Poet
Category: In search of
Subject: Deep Thought
Date: 04/15/88 Time: 17:41:52
...
Discoveries of any great moment in mathematics and other
disciplines, once they are discovered, are seen to be
extremely simple and obvious, and make everybody, including
their discoverer, appear foolish for not having discovered
them before. It is all too often forgotten that the ancient
symbol for the prenascence of the world is a fool, and that
foolishness, being a divine state, is not a condition to be
either proud or ashamed of.
Unfortunately we find systems of education today which
have departed so far from the plain truth, that they now
teach us to be proud of what we know and ashamed of
ignorance. This is doubly corrupt. It is corrupt not only
because pride is in itself a mortal sin, but also because to
teach pride in knowledge is to put up an effective barrier
against any advance upon what is already known, since it
makes one ashamed to look beyond the bonds imposed by one's
ignorance.
To any person prepared to enter with respect into the
realm of his great and universal ignorance, the secrets of
being will eventually unfold, and they will do so in a
measure according his freedom from natural and indoctrinated
shame in his respect of their revelation.
In the face of the strong, and indeed violent, social
pressures against it, few people have been prepared to take
this simple and satisfying course towards sanity. And in a
society where a prominant psychiatrist can advertise that,
given the chance, he would have treated Newton to electric
shock therapy, who can blame any person for being afraid to
do so?
To arrive at the simplest truth, as Newton knew and
practised, requires *years* of *contemplation*. Not
activity. Not reasoning. Not calculating. Not busy
behaviour of any kind. Not reading. Not talking. Not
making an effort. Not thinking. Simply *bearing in mind*
what it is one needs to know. And yet those with the
courage to tread this path to real discovery are not only
offered practically no guidance on how to do so, they are
actively discouraged and have to set about it in secret,
pretending meanwhile to be diligently engaged in the frantic
diversions and to conform with the deadening personal
opinions which are being continually thrust upon them.
In these circumstances, the discoveries that any person is
able to undertake represent the places where, in the face of
induced psychosis, he has, by his own faltering and unaided
efforts, returned to sanity. Painfully, and even
dangerously, maybe. But nonetheless returned, however
furtively.
Message: 51770
Author: $ Alan Hamilton
Category: Tales & Tall Stories
Subject: Whoope!
Date: 04/15/88 Time: 19:48:27
This is my 500th login. Like, wow.
/
/ * / Alan
* *
Message: 51771
Author: $ Alan Hamilton
Category: Answer!
Subject: JT/Regulation
Date: 04/15/88 Time: 19:49:55
Your points on corrupt regulators are well taken. I hadn't thought of
that. (See, I can admit when I'm wr-- wr3#@ wrmbbpfjgh w-w-wrong.)
/
/ * / Alan
* *
Message: 51772
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Answer!
Subject: Hamilton
Date: 04/16/88 Time: 00:12:34
My point was not that regulators are corrupt, but that the very system of
regulation necessarily breeds corruption.
Message: 51773
Author: Michael Kielsky
Category: Answer!
Subject: Use Tax
Date: 04/16/88 Time: 01:19:15
I believe my point was missed.
The reasoning for a use tax is as follows:
1 - Do away with income tax.
2 - Through some (indeterminate) scheme, attempt to conciliate the services
provided by the government (at each level, federal, state, municipal,
etc.) with a cost per unit of utility to any individual.
3 - Through another indeterminate scheme collect an amount approximate to
that cost from the user of that service, in amounts corresponding to
the user's actual utility.
Example: (not necessarily optimal)
I drive on the city streets. The city needs to build and maintain the
streets. Somehow (?) the city determines that it costs them $.25 per 100
miles driven in the city. Since in this utopian example all cars get 50
miles per gallon, I pay the city $.25 of gas tax for every 2 gallons of gas
that I buy. Comprende?
The question of regressive taxation is not dealt with in this example, yet
as was pointed out, items such as staple groceries, etc. could be excluded,
or might just by the very nature not be associated with any 'use tax' (how
much money does the government spend to inspect each head of lettuce?) M.K.
Message: 51774
Author: Michael Kielsky
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Use Tax, cont.
Date: 04/16/88 Time: 01:36:54
Of course, how can one place a cost on the utility that each individual
receives from government services such as law enforcement, defense, welfare,
etc.?
Perhaps these items (which actually tend to form the vast majority of the
federal budget) need to be supported by something similar to a property tax?
I national sales tax would definetly be regressive.
On another note: How much better would the system get if the tax-payer gets
to determine the budget when they file their income tax form. For example,
how would you feel about the following questionaire being included with your
1040 tax return?:
Federal Budget for Fiscal '89:
(instructions: please enter the percentage of your fund that you wish to
allocate to the following major categories of Federal funding. Your
percentage total must add up to 100!!!)
Defense: ___ % Social Security: ___ % Welfare: ___ %
SpAce/NASA: ___ % Narc. Law Enforcement: ___ % Air Regl't/FAA: ___ %
Health/CDC: ___ % Other Law Enforcement: ___ % Consumer/FTC: ___ %
Drug/FDA: ___ % Congress/Exec. Salaries: ___ % Electronics/FCC: ___ %
etc...
Michael Kielsky
Message: 51775
Author: Michael Kielsky
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Last cont.
Date: 04/16/88 Time: 01:40:38
The above would be true democracy (or anarchy).
Anyone wish to expound on that point?
Michael Kielsky
Message: 51776
Author: $ Jim Lippard
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: pronouns
Date: 04/16/88 Time: 08:15:49
There was some discussion here a while back about how use of "they" as a
singular sex-indefinite pronoun is "wrong" and use of "he" in the same place
is not sexist. According to "Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar:
singular 'they', sex-indefinite 'he', and 'he or she'" in Language in
Society 4(Aug 1975):129-146, before the prescriptive grammar movement in
English, "they", "he or she", and "he" were all commonly used as a singular
sex-indefinite pronoun. In the late 16th century, grammarians argued that
"A man is sette before a woman" and "The Masculine gender is more worthy
than the Feminine." But still, until the late 18th century all three forms
were used. The first proscription of "they" found was in a grammar book of
1765. "He or she" was not argued against until the 19th century, when an
Act of Parliament forbade its use in law.
And there really is no good argument against the use of "they" or "he or
she". From Bodine, p. 133:
If the definition of 'they' as exclusively plural is accepted, then
'they' fails to agree with a singular, sex-indefinite antecedent by one
feature--that of number. Similarly, 'he' fails to agree with a singular,
sex-indefinite antecedent by one feature--that of gender. A non-sexist
'correction' would have been to advocate 'he or she', but rather than
encourage this usage the grammarians actually tried to eradicate it also,
claiming 'he or she' is 'clumsy', 'pedantic', or 'unnecessary'.
Significantly, they never attacked forms such as 'one or more' or 'person or
persons', although the plural logically includes the singular more than the
masculine includes the feminine. These two situations are linguistically
Message: 51777
Author: $ Jim Lippard
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: pronouns
Date: 04/16/88 Time: 08:19:20
analogous. In both cases the language user is confronted with an obligatory
category, either number or sex, which is irrelevant to the message being
transmitted. However, the two are not socially analogous, since number
lacks social significance. Consequently, number and gender have received
very different treatment by past and present prescriptive and descriptive
grammarians of English. Of the three forms which existed in English for a
sex-indefinite referent ('he or she', 'they', and 'he'), only one was
selected as 'correct' while the other two were proscribed. Although the
grammarians felt they were motivated by an interest in logic, accuracy, and
elegance, the above analysis reveals that there is no rational, objective
basis for their choice, and therefore the explanation must lie elsewhere.
It would appear that the choice was dictated bny an androcentric world-view;
linguistically, human beings were to be considered male unless proven
otherwise.
Message: 51778
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mickael/list
Date: 04/16/88 Time: 08:49:01
I know you were probably talking 'tougue in cheek' when you put the list in
for the voters. But it's not a bad idea. I think it would be a surprise at
how many would agree and send money (a lot) to each of those on the list. Of
course, it won't be done. Since when does the government think of the
people? When we were a fairly new country, the people ran it more than now.
Those days are gone. =*--ANN--*=
Bulletin Board command:EP
You chose Politics
Subject:Candidate
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1: I am voting for Lenora B. Fulani for President. She belongs to the
2:New Alliance Party and their motto is "People Instead of Profits."
3: She will be great in the White House.
4:end
Edit command:S
Message: 51780
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer!
Subject: M. Kielsky
Date: 04/16/88 Time: 11:52:08
Your suggestions on how to restructure our tax mess is excellent.
There is only one little problem on why it would not be implemented.
The problem: It shows thought and makes sense.
Rod
P.S. Now, if you could only garble the hell out of it so no one really
understands its meaning but that everyone has to work from January 1st to
May the 7th, each year in order to pay their share of taxes, it would
probably be passed. All THEY are looking for is for the people to
eventually work full time in order to support THEM. Their current
philosophy is "take at least two more days per annum from us" and we may not
notice.
Of course this message was all tongue-in-cheek, but I'm sure you
catch the meaning.
Message: 51781
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Ann/Taxes
Date: 04/16/88 Time: 12:22:31
If you would pay less taxes then stand up and let it be known that you
do not support the expanding welfare state. Vote for candidates and
propositions seeking to curtail entitlements and hand outs. Urge your
representatives NOT to vote in favor of pork barrel spending whether it
would take place here or elsewhere. Agitate in favor of line item veto
power for the president over appropriation bills.
When anyone tries to tell you that a tax increase is necessary, demand
proof that the expenditure is required AND that the revenue can not be
diverted from a less necessary project that is already being funded. Very
damn little will pass this test.
There is a bumper sticker afoot in the land which reads,
"Work Harder - Millions on Welfare Depend on You!". While you are
working all those days to pay your taxes keep that thought in mind and
consider why it is that so much of your work should benefit others when
it has not been your decision.
There is a favorite excuse used by advocates of federal spending to the
effect that most spending is done for the benefit of the middle class.
Put the lie to this excuse once and for all. Ask not what big brother can
do for you, ask what you can do for yourself.
See you later,
Dean H.
Message: 51782
Author: Apro Poet
Category: Politics
Subject: The Prince
Date: 04/16/88 Time: 13:53:07
From "The Prince," by Machiavelli, 1532:
That We Must Avoid Being Despised and Hated
But as I have now spoken of the most important of the
qualities in question, I will now deal briefly and generally
with the rest. The prince must, as already stated, avoid
those things which will make him hated or despised; and
whenever he succeeds in this, he will have done his part,
and will find no danger in other vices. He will chiefly
become hated, as I said, by being rapacious, and usurping
the property and women of his subjects, which he must
abstain from doing, and whenever one does not attack the
property or honor of the generality of men, they will live
contented; and one will only have to combat the ambition of
a few, who can be easily held in check in many ways. He is
rendered despicable by being thought changeable, frivolous,
effeminate, timid, and irresolute; which a prince must guard
against as a rock of danger, and so contrive that his
actions show grandeur, spirit, gravity, and fortitude; and as
to the government of his subjects, let his sentence be
irrevocable, and let him adhere to his decisions so that no
one may think of deceiving or cozening him.
The prince who creates such an opinion of himself gets a
great reputation, and it is very difficult to conspire
against one who has a great reputation, and he will not
easily be attacked, so long as it is known that he is
capable and reverenced by his subjects. For a prince must
have two kinds of fear: one internal as regards his
subjects, one external as regards foreign powers. From the
latter he can defend himself with good arms and good
friends, and he will always have good friends if he has good
arms; and internal matters will always remain quiet, if they
are not perturbed by conspiracy and there is no disturbance
from without; and even if external powers sought to attack
him, if he has ruled and lived as I have described, he will
always if he stands firm, be able to sustain every shock, as
I have shown that Nabis the Spartan did. But with regard to
the subjects, if not acted on from outside, it is still to
be feared lest they conspire in secret, from which the
prince may guard himself well by avoiding hatred and
contempt, and keeping the people satisfied with him, which
it is necessary to accomplish, as has been related at
length.
Message: 51784
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod
Date: 04/16/88 Time: 14:12:47
You are an idiot.
Bulletin Board command:EA
You chose Answer!
Subject:JT/LAST
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1: Thank you!
2:P.S. I see that I have come up in the world.
VOID Bulletin Board command:$C
Message: 1282
Author: $ Carol Graham
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ed Sharpe
Date: 04/15/88 Time: 23:52:49
It was especially interesting to be courted by Ed as a user on his BBS...as
if having females were some kinda status symbol. Then when I would get on
there, he, invariably, would whisk me off into the great nowheres, where he
and I could be alone together and talk all sad stuff, like near suicides,
and gals who had died but still spoke to him. I used to get the
creepies...then one night in particular, I thought, hey! something is wrong
in the System X syndrome. It was 3 am and he and I had been chatting and he
asked me to call him VOICE...at 3am, yet! Well, I wasn't as assertive as I
am now (ha) so I called him. He was like a timebomb ready to diffuse....or a
spring that had already sprung. I didn't know what he was expecting from me,
but he sure as heck never got it. I kept trying to hang up, pointing out
that my husband may not understand this stuff that's going on while he was
sleeping, but that never phased him, he just kept speaking melodramatically.
As I remember, I finally HUNG UP!!! and I never, ever, called again.
I NEVER could get the hang of that System...the trees were greater than the
forest and I got paranoid myself in the middle of the conferences...gads, I
would break out in hives just trying to be cool on there. I think that is
where I met David, though...Whew! Those WERE the days. Where is he now?
or is he now?
Is it getting time for the Apollo Classic? My gosh, life is flying and I am
still hanging onto the kite!
Carol->
Message: 1283
Author: $ Carol Graham
Category: Question?
Subject: MacP
Date: 04/15/88 Time: 23:53:54
has anyone heard from him lately?
The last one I worried about like this was Jack Privateer...Please, Steve,
be around.
Carol->