From: PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie, Logic Czar and Father of Two)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Round Up
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:42:34 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Before this last little message to T, I want to give a brief
preamble. (Other messages will follow in the same post, too.)

Some readers, but I think only newcomers, may have thought
that I was getting especially angry or something. I wasn't,
not at all. I thought our exchange was vigorous, but quite
even-tempered. It's too bad that we got distracted from
the main issue, which was the interest of Camille Paglia
(and the main side issue, which was the rationality of
Catherine MacKinnon) by some syntactical issues. I have
fun with the syntactical issues, but I can always keep them
firmly in the background.
Since I agree with almost everything T posts EXCEPT what
he said about Paglia (and MacKinnon, and, ok, indefinite
articles and "gender"!), I figured it would be illuminating
to find out why we disagreed. But, T thought I was getting
overly excited, and I thought he was. So, I'll just drop
it after this if it's going to die a natural death.

In late February, after the conference here on Sex and Law
(featuring MacKinnon, Posner, and a few other legal eagles)
I'll try to give a really contentious summary, and possibly
interested parties could start in again.

From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET

> Jamie:

> It's getting real tiresome responding to you - we seem to agree on so
>  much but I feel [not an opinion - a feeling] that there's a lot
> more behind your "argument" than just that.

Funny thing, I sort of agree.
I suspect T meant that there was something *nefarious* "behind
my argument," though he didn't actually say so. I believe that
T is just reading things into my postings that aren't there.

Last word on "gender":
Mr. Virtual President provided empirical information, with which
I am quite content.

Last words on "history":
An hungry historian spent a hour and an half hasking an hundred
friends habout indefinite harticles. An history of the event
made 'er an happy camper.

> I find it rather conceitful that you would *take offense* at a
> particular criticism of mine.

I never took any offense at all. I wonder why you thought so?
(By "conceitful" did T mean that he thought *I* was conceited,
or that it reinforced some conceit of *his*?)

>Have you been granted some sort of patent on
>truth?  What's the deal with that?  That really got under your skin, eh?

Huh?
I don't understand what T is driving at here.
I believe what I say is true. I don't know what it means
to have a "patent on truth."

I think old readers will know that it takes a great deal
more than what T has written to "get under my skin."

>Relax.  You'll learn a heck of a lot more AND you'll live longer.

I agree. Fortunately, I'm quite relaxed. Oddly enough.
Considering. (hint hint)

+++++++++++++++++++++

From:         "(JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)" <jse2@NS1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU>

>I REALLY can't belive what I'm hearing.  How can you say Anita Hill
>deserves consideration as a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE when she isn't
>even A JUDGE!!

As our learned History Czar pointed out, Earl Warren wasn't a judge
either. I don't think Justice Brandeis was ever a judge before
he was appointed to the Supreme Court. Or Justice Marshall.
(Am I wrong about them?)

I'm glad to see that the list is keeping up its idiot ratio, though.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>

>Does anybody know who is responsible for introducing the proposed 200%
>tariff on certain european goods such as wine, cheese, etc?

Our president is responsible.

Personally, I think he's taking revenge on all the white wine
drinkers who voted against him. You know, the yuppies.

The tariff is going to do wonders for the Chilean economy,
though. It's going to make those Chilean white wines look
REALLY cheap.

++++++++++++++++

Term Limits:
I had heard that 13 out of 14 passed. Maybe the 14th passed
later, I don't know. Val says it did, probably he's right.

Electoral College:
It will meet in December, on the 14th I think, to choose
Clinton officially. Quayle will preside.

Jamie