HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 30 Aug 1992 12:10:51 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

>Well, let's be fair about the money generated from hunting/fishing revenues
>.  Some of it goes directly to wildlife management, but that doesn't
>necessarily mean it's being used wisely or well.  For starters, you need to
>know what percentage of the money is going to "game" vs. "nongame" wildlife
>programs (around here, the bulk -- if not all -- goes to "game" programs).
>Then, you need to look at how that money is being spent.  Is it being spent
>to maintain habitats in their "normal" condition?  To restore them?  Or to
>alter them so as to increase the number of game species at the expense of
>non-game species?

It isn't clear that there's a useful distinction, at least when it
comes to practices other than "raise prey and release it".

One of the standard lessons of "game management" is about an attempt
to create a "in the wild" deer farm.  They tried to skew the habitat
for deer survival, but the result was almost no deer.  The successful
strategy is to not try to skew things.

There is a bias in that "game" programs will ignore habitats that
don't support "game".  Since there are lots of different types of
game, there aren't many habitats that qualify.  However, the support
that no-game habitats get does say something about "the rest of us".

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:14:50 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Manhood

 Well Fred, she wishes there was a female version of vasectomy?  What's
 wrong with the male version?  A real man, a loving husband, would be
 willing to have this done.  What's your excuse?

 ---Robert

 "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:58:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>Richard:
>
>Why are genocide and using someone's body against their will wrong?
>
>--Missy P 2 B

        Somehow I suspect that you are after something a bit more
complex and involved than a simple, "because it is harmful to others"
response.  But I'm not sure exactly what.  Any answer which is suf-
ficiently detailed to explain all of the things I think you could be
asking in asking this question would take hundreds of pages to write.
A few of the things I think you may be trying to determine by my
answer is:

        1) Can I defend the wrongness of such conduct without appeal
to God.  (Answer: Yes--by reducing moral facts to facts about the
relationship between states of affairs and desires.)

        2) Can I provide an answer to this question without imply-
ing that abortion is wrong.  For example, if "harmfulness to others"
is a reason for the wrongness of these activities, and since abortion
causes harm to others, then to avoid contradiction I would have to
hold that abortion is wrong to (or be forced to the absurd conclusion
that there is nothing wrong with genocide and using another person's
body without her consent.)  Answer: I've already addressed this issue
on a series of posts earlier this summer.  If this is what the ques-
tion is aiming at, I will refer you to those posts.

        3) You could be attempting to draw a response which shows
that in enforcing these moral judgments I am in fact advocating
that people do in fact have a right to force their moral views on
others.  If this is the actual aim, then it should be known that
the law ought to be grounded on moral principles.  More specifically,
the law ought to be in accordance with moral facts (all immoral laws
should be repealed, for example).

        It could be none of the above (or, perhaps, all of the
above).  If you could provide me with a more precise question, then
I could provide you with a more precise answer.

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 08:24:28 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Boing

Good Morning all:

Again it was stated...

>Right. But it appears that most people don't agree with her.

Really????  Have you asked most people, are you sure about what most
people in the country, state, county, town or your own city block has
said???   Nobody is going to know just who is voting for who until the day
after the election, because as long as the campaign continues everyone should
stay off the 'pollercoaster' ride, or at least don't take them seriously.
The day after the election is the only time when the press cannot lie about the
polls, because that's when the wild-and-crazy percentages become solid votes.

What people should ask is 'Why aren't you voting this year?'  Too much of that
is being said from both party voters on TV, and local or national radio talk
shows.  Discovering how many people won't vote would be a sad poll to take,
the apathetic candidate is becoming too popular this year.

Facing the hordes of medical and nursing students in the '92-'93 school year,

Sue Clark

I heard a 'political' trivia question today and wondered if anyone could answer
it.

'Who was John Anderson's running mate in 1980?'  I couldn't remember if he even
had one.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:24:51 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER
              31 Aug 1992 13:13:00 EDT from <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>

Richard:

I don't know what you're reading, but it's wrong.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:24:45 -0500
From:         GAYLA BASSHAM <BASGD@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: is Clinton being anxious? and is NBC being less than

>>For what it's worth, Tom Brokaw (is that the NBC guy?) prefaced a taped
>>interview with Clinton -- shown during the R. convention -- with the
>>statement that NBC had contacted Bush and Quayle about providing responses
>>during the D. convention.  They declined.

>Since standard procedure has been to let the other party get a free
>ride during the convention, that decline is "biz as usual"?

>When did "the rules" change?  Is there an obligation to tell the other
>side "in time"?  (If the Demos told the repubs well BEFORE the Demo
>convention, the Repubs have no biz whining.)

Bush didn't appear on NBC, but he did campaign during the Democratic convention.
Clinton didn't campaign; he just did an interview.

>-andy

-----Gayla
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 11:06:20 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Changing topic??

>With all respect to your point of view, I think that there is something
>that you are overlooking. When the international forces wanted to push
>Irakis out of Kuwait, they did not start by hitting Iraki forces occupying
>Kuwait. Their prime action were air raids over Baghdad, Irak.

So?  What did those air raids accomplish?  There was a command and
control target and a "destroy their infra-structure" goal, but ...

>Using the same philosophy, stopping the Bosnian massacre would require
>(at least as a first stage) raiding Serbia, not Bosnia.

And what would those raids accomplish?  There's no command and control
structure; what good will it do to destroy the Serbian infrastructure?
Is a terror-from-the-air campaign in Serbia really going to have an
effect on a terror campaign in Bosnia implemented by folks who have
some vague relationship to the Serbs?

>This would hit supplies and fortifications without which Serbian forces
>in Bosnia cannot survive and will eventually have to withdraw.

Snipers in Bosnia depend on fortifications in Serbia?  Wrong.  They
don't even require significant supplies, and the supplies they do
require can be hidden/produced ANYWHERE.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 11:53:24 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: meaningless phrases

linda:

Instead of becoming a vegetarian, you should have just sued your mother.

After all, this is America.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:29:11 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      RE: Sandy Patti
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Fri, 21 Aug 1992 10:24:00 EST linda said:
>>To save the dirt-diggers some time & trouble regarding Sandy Patti:
>>yes, she's a religious singer and yes, she's filed for divorce.
>
>sandy patti??? that is the goofiest name i've ever heard.
>and why would anyone care?

Because a number of attempts have been made about hypocrisy in
putting persons who aren't classic examples of Ward & June Cleaver
style family values up on the RNC stage.

I was saving them the time & trouble.
>-linda

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 08:48:19 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: (no subject given

>
>I doubt it.  I think that our current government is filled with a
>bunch of scum-sucking weenies.  I think that BOTH major parties are
>corrupt and intellectually bankrupt.  I only regret that it seems that
>we are NOT on the verge of any kind of constitutional crisis which might
>change things... we seem destined to muddle along stupidly into the
>next century.
>
>--Jimbo

sheesh. who got up on the wrong side of the bed, huh?  you know,
jimbo, i can't help feeling that if you just had faith,
faith in God, that you would feel so much better.  Have you
thought about trying to find a place for organized religion
in your miserable crabby life?  Have you read any L. Ron Hubbard?

jcs "Jesus Christ Saves"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: dletcher@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Drew Letcher)
Subject: Iowa Political Securities Markets prices
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:57:39 GMT


IOWA POLITICAL SECURITIES MARKETS

Prices as of Thursday August 27, 1992

PRESIDENTIAL VOTE SHARE  (Dividends based on Nov. 3 Vote Share)

                  Bid     Ask    Last
     BUSH       0.437   0.481   0.468
     CLINTON    0.444   0.485   0.464
     PEROT      0.052   0.066   0.065

PRESIDENTIAL PLURALTIY  (Dividend of winner pays $1/share, others $0)

                  Bid     Ask    Last
     BUSH       0.432   0.454   0.428
     CLINTON    0.548   0.554   0.548
     PEROT      0.015   0.028   0.020

To see the latest prices:
(You must have a full screen terminal. Telnet-3270 will not work.)

     telnet ipsm.biz.uiowa.edu or 128.255.44.2

For more information contact:

     email: ipsm@scout-po.biz.uiowa.edu
     phone: (319) 335-0881

The IPSM is a non-profit research project of the University of Iowa,
College of Business Adminstration.

-- 
Drew Letcher            | Specializing in PC network application programming.
Systems Programmer      | DOS, Netware, NetBIOS, IPX/SPX, etc.
drew-letcher@uiowa.edu  | 

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:58:53 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
              28 Aug 1992 10:36:59 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET

> I, and I believe the majority of pro-lifers, are willing to accept
> abortion in cases of RAPE, INCEST and LIFE of the mother.  This is
> no way means that we can justify or condone our exceptions.  The use
> of abortion as a form of birth control must be stopped.  If these 3
> exceptions will help to accomplish that end, I willingly support them.

I ask this for the nth time.  What use other than birth control
does abortion have????  What does it mean to say "The use of abortion
as a from of birth control must be stopped"??? As opposed to what
other use of abortion that seems to be OK to you?

> I do not think MENTAL HEALTH should be a factor.  If you're stressed,
> take a powder.  The life of the child should be the foremost concern of
> all involved.  If we have to deal with a certain amount of inconvenience
> or stress, so be it.  Abortion in EVERY SINGLE CASE is murder.  ........

Then why would you allow it in the cases of rape, incest, and life
of the woman?

> ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 10:24:44 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Thou shalt not ( ? )

 *************************************************************************
 **                     B E   F O R E W A R N E D                       **
 **  The following comments involve a religious approach to a very      **
 **  political problem.  Namely, the legality/morality of self defense. **
 *************************************************************************

 Missy,

 I believe the translation of "Thou shalt not kill", reads more accurately
 as "Thou shalt not murder".  I do not have the text available to get the
 exact wording.

 Following your position, how could the U.S. get involved against Hitler or
 Sadman Insane?  Judicious use of force exists throughout the scripture, all
 the way from capital punishment to the annihalation of cities.

 How can the Second Coming be fulfilled without Armagaeddon?

 ---Robert

 "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 30 Aug 1992 17:47:21 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

I just love this topic :)
I wrote:
>>Second, a minority of migratory birds are game species (and we're losing
>>migratory songbirds at an alarming rate -- mostly because of winter habitat
>>destruction).

and -andy replied:
>No one has successfully managed to do what Kerry insists is standard
>practice, namely skew a habitat in favor of a few species.  True,
>"game" management practices PICK habitats that support game species,
>ignoring those that don't, but those species that share those habitats
>benefit (contrary to Kerry's claim).  Hunters' support for game
>habitats doesn't stop anyone from supporting other habitats.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the paragraph I wrote.  Anyway, I
don't think I ever said that skewing habitat was standard practice.
*Altering* habitats to favor game over non-game species does happen.  And
of course, various human practices have been skewing habitats in favor of
some species over others for a long time.

>I'm not claiming that hunters have done everything that "should"
>be done, but that they've done much of what HAS been done.

Maybe I misread your original post, then.

>>Third, we started losing migratory game birds initially because of things like
>>over-hunting (for sport, for ornamentation, etc.) and habitat destruction.
>
>No, sport-hunting hasn't had any extinction effect.  MARKET hunting
>has.  Surely we don't have to discuss the difference.
>
>We all do habitat distruction, so ....

True on both counts.  I don't mind making the market vs. sport hunting
distinction.

>>Fourth, we *are*, in fact, doing some things to reverse the trend, and
>>sometimes groups like Ducks Unlimited are helping.  But so are lots of
>>other groups (the Audobon society, the Nature Conservancy, local citizen
>>groups, etc.).
>
>If we look at the spending and the actual results, we see who's the
>dog and who's the tail.  The hunting groups have been spending
>hundreds of millions of dollars a year for decades.

I'd like to look at the spending and the actual results.  Do you have any?
I know I don't have those kinds of data available.  It'd be interesting.

Just out of curiosity:  how many CA hunters supported the referendum on
mountain lion preservation?  Are any hunting groups involved in the efforts
to deal with the heavy-metal poisoning of the interior wetlands?

Mo' later
(I really do need to check out game species habitat requirements!)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 09:02:25 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      ghwb sings the blues

Todays washington post poll has the godless democrats at a +19 advantage.
Can you say "match point"?

As a lifetime hunter, I can state that at least in the area where I live,
hunters provide habitat for a variety of non-game species as well as the
game animals. Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever seek to provide the
habitat for all animals. Steel shot is mandatory in DU areas to prevent
lead poisoning. The platte river in central Nebraska has been preserved
as habitat for the whooping cranes and sandhill cranes, a very impressive
sight each spring and fall.

MP2B says: "Those who are posting on this subject without any knowledge
of it (except what they learned from books) are way out of line and
abysmally ignorant".
Thank you for summing up exactly how I feel about post's on the word of
god.

I can't believe that the Sultan of sting hasn't graced us with his
presence during the stretch run.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 08:13:31 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER

>
>Richard:
>
>Why are genocide and using someone's body against their will wrong?
>
>--Missy P 2 B

HUH? i'm lost here. Isn't the second statement what Pro-Choicers
say?

jcs ' i need a damn scorecard '
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:05:14 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> You haven't been paying attention.  The abortion figure is now *30*
> million in the U.S.

> 4000 a day.  Tick....tick....tick.

> --Missy P 2 B

30M/365 = 82192, not 4000.

No wonder why pro-lifers have the misconception that the
abortion industry makes a lot of money.    :-)

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:31:52 EDT
From:         Evelyn <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The City on the Hill
              25 Aug 1992 15:29:58 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

On Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:29:58 -0400 <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU> said:
>
>Maybe.  But the question was about his presidential aspirations . . .

Maybe he was planning to give Bush a year and then have his golfing buddies
declare Bush incompetent in 1994 (after the economy has gone way downhill).

But then maybe not.
>
>Kerry

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: nope
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:43:38 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Use of Deadly Force

I knew I'd leave out something.

As far as the law is concerned, "shoot to kill" and "shoot to wound"
are both wrong.  Deadly force can be legally used to STOP someone in
certain circumstances, but to the extent that there's a difference
between "kill/wound" and "stop", the law is quite clear.  (Yes, if the
stopping happens to involve injury/death, that's okay; that's happens
in situations where there is no difference, so it isn't useful for
discussing differences.)

Shoot to stop is also tactically superior to both.  It doesn't do
anyone any good (as far as self-defense goes) if the attacker dies 10
days later from infection.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:49:30 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform

            Joe, baby, you blew it again:

1) the first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting
religion", not talk of established churches.

            It would have behooved you to call for the line before
            attempting to deliver it; most of your audience has
            read the script.  The line is "Congress shall make no
            law respecting AN ESTABLISHMENT OF religion, nor pro-
            hibiting the free exercise thereof..."  Bit archaic,
            perhaps, but meaning there will be no Church of the
            United States (a la Church of England.)  You may well
            want to argue the meaning, but try to get the text
            right.


3) very good idea about reading historical documents.

            Never show your arrogance in an intellectual debate;
            it may come back to haunt you.

            --Missy P 2 B
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: PRESUMED GUILTY: INNOCENT VICTIMS OF CURRENT WAR ON DRUG
Date: 24 Aug 92 03:12:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <POLITICS%92082314092494@UCF1VM.BITNET>, IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil) writes...
>On Sat, 22 Aug 1992 18:36:37 CDT Mary Jacobs said:
>>SEND COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS INFORMATION TO THE
>>CLINTON/GORE CAMPAIGN AT 75300.3115@COMPUSERVE.COM
> 
>Good idea!  I forwarded it as is to this address.  Perhaps if they get
>tired of paying for junk mail received on Compu$erve [sic] they'll
>tell you to quit posting 1700+ lines of junk mail over the networks...
>just make it ftp'able somewhere instead and interested parties will
>retrieve it as they see fit.

	Junk Mail? 

	MacPhil, am I presuming that you did not find every line of 
that 1700 line mail bomb interesting and clarifying?

	And don't think that they are worrying about paying for it. 
You are paying of it. Both candidates received 55 million from the 
federal government to help pay the price of campaigning. I presume 
that this includes the cost of mail bombs through compu$erve.

	Maybe they could buy Bill a watch while they are at it. The 
hottest day this year in Buffalo, and he said that he would be at 
Canisius College at 5:30. I waited till 7:00 before I left. I 
think he stood us up. 

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET (Kerry Stephenson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Thou shalt not ( ? )
Date: 29 Aug 92 23:42:51 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              29 Aug 1992 17:15:10 GMT from <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

Just a small theological point here.

Armageddon involves the armies led by Christ at his second coming
and the armies of the world.  Besides which, the bad guys start it.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU