### 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->