HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:39:04 EST
From:         Daniel David Benson <bensonda@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: smoke smoke smoke that cigarette
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              at Jan 23, 93 10:22 pm

>
> All these numbers are neat, but:
>
> Smoking or non-smoking, the number one cause of death of human beings
> in America today is pre-natal dismemberment.  1.5 million per year.
> And climbing.
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> --NINAR Kerry
>
Isn't it funny how some people can bring up abortion when talking about any
other issue? A blob of tissue isn't exactly a human being. If you want to start
an argument on this one, I better grab myself another beer and settle in at the
console.

-Dan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:39:12 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Homosexuals in the Military
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>Now is the time to buy stock in "Soap-on-a-Rope".  After this, a dropped
>bar of soap is history.
>
>---Robert

        My best friend in High School was gay, and I never feared for my butt.

Brett'
:)
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Musical Presidents
Date: 24 Jan 1993 11:22 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <23JAN93.08222710.0011.MUSIC@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>,        
 "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU> writes...
[Identification deleted.]
>> >2. It depends how you look at Richard Nixon...  Unlike Clinton, he
>> >HAD some clue about foreign policy.  Unlike Clinton, he had the media
>> >against him.  Unlike "Slick Willy" Clinton, he did not have a good
>> >public image.  I honestly believe that in ability alone, Richard
>> >Nixon was a great President that Bill Clinton can never compare to. . . .
[Me]
>> Read Jerry Voorhis' _The Strange Case of Richard Milhous Nixon_ (1972).  And
>> remember, this was written before Watergate.
>>
>>                                                         Dan, ad nauseum
[Rufus T. Firefly] 
>   and after nixon had beaten voorhis in an election for the senate (or
>was it the house of reps? i can never remember) by using some negative
>advertising, all but calling voorhis a communist and suchlike. not
>exactly an unbiased viewpoint . . .

Admittedly, Nixon did run an extreme dirty tricks campaign for Voorhis' House
seat in 1948.  Voorhis, however, documented nearly everything he had to say
about Nixon, and essentially predicted that Nixon would try something
particularly egregious in the 1972 elections.  The general opinion of Voorhis'
book changed from "sour grapes" when it first came out to insightful after
Watergate.

          						Dan, ad nauseum
From: gpn0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (GARY PHILIP NEWHART)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Shortest Presidency
Date: 21 Jan 93 23:41:41 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <MAILQUEUE-101.930121093804.704@suzy.law.ucla.edu>, JACOBS@125LAW1.LA
W.UCLA.EDU (Stan Jacobs) writes:

It certainly wasn't Lincoln; he was tall, not one of the shortest!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:39:25 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: 7-11 guide fails again

>For those who do not consult the 7-11 guide to the Supreme Court :
>    The prongs of the Lemon Test concern :
>          - a strictly secular purpose
>          - whether an act or a law advance or inhibit religion
>          - whether there is an excessive government entanglement
>    P.S.Ruckman, Jr.

  gosh, ps, nicely done - though jamie did beat you
to the punch on that one.  still, I wonder, if you
were so quick with that, why have you still not
addressed the earlier argument.  really, saving your
great argument for spring - it has me on pins and
needles.  while I personally have enormous unfounded
confidence in your ability to point out in precise
and irrefutable detail the errors in jamie's post
about "workability," I think some others might like
to see you actually follow through with it - their
reasoning being that if you *did* know what you were
talking about when you brought it up, there's no
reason to wait 3 months to reveal the evidence and
if you didn't know what you were talking about,
maybe you ought just to admit it - particularly
as jamie has been good enough to back up his
argument with quotes from the case.  as far as
7-11 guides go, they serve their purpose, and
are certainly better than what you've offered
to date - nothing.  don't let me down, big guy.
put jamie in his place.

                       -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:49:58 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Sultan and DoD policy
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>     How gracious of you.  Seriously, though, welcome back.  It's like
>an addiction, isn't it?  "Go ahead.  Post a little.  All your friends
>are doin' it.  It's fun.  If you don't like it, you can quit anytime."

        Hey, I've quit dozens of times already :).

...
>     Most of the policy is vague and ill-defined.  The arguments
>concerning maintenance of "discipline, order, and morale" and
>"mutual trust and confidence" are similar to the objections
>raised to the racial and gender integration of the military, and
>experience since then has shown these reservations in previous
>context were unwarranted.

        I agree wholeheartedly.  The implication is that homosexuals are
untrustworthy.  That they are incapable of restraining their sexual desires and
will not obey orders.
        IOW: a bunch of hooey.

...
>     As far as the effect of homosexuals on the ability to work
>in "close conditions affording minimal privacy," I will have to
>agree with the statement of the previous poster that this concern
>should wane as servicemembers realize that homosexuals are not
>inherently attracted to every member of the same sex, just as
>heterosexuals are not attracted to everyone of the opposite sex.

        And that gays don't go into a sexual frenzy at the sight of male
organs.
        Of course the military could also install shower dividers for incurably
modest :).

>     The concern over the difficulty of recruiting and retaining
>servicemembers seems superficial when you realize that it is the
>DoD's own current policy which has resulted in the discharge of
>personnel, many of whom had distinguished themselves in service
>to their nation.

        This has always been a nice catch-22.  Why is it disruptive?  Because
they all get fired!
:\

        On a related note, people are falling back on the AIDS defense.  AIDS
is not limited to gays.  It's high time the military started screening it's
personnel for AIDS in any event.  Not to persecute, but to ensure that
battlefield transfusions don't kill the wounded through HIV transfer.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:36:18 EST
From:         Robert Kelly <rkelly@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Nanny and Zoe
Comments: To: cug@catfish.valdosta.peachnet.edu
Comments: cc: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

The failure in our society is that we do wish to have the best and most honest
 people serve in our nations government positions.  However we make the mistake
 of allowing politics pollute the true minds eye about people.  Mrs Baird would
 have been a great Attorney General.  Yet the poltics of our time has scared her
 reputation.  This was positively the Republican reaction to the Tower
 confermation and the peoples lack of knowledge for the law.  She paid for the
 violation of the law now I believe she will pay for the rest of her life.
 Yesterday we began a new day in our American experience yet we hold onto the
 faults of our past.  The Republican leaders like her(Dole and Hatch).  What
 happened to the rest of the GOP and what of these so called loyal Democrats.  I
 believe that this is the beginning of what will happen in Congress for the next
 few years.  Less party loyalty with a new younger and more daring coalition
 being born.  Not all bad Yet not all good.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET>
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:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:00:33 -0500
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [abortion case]
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt459276@drew.edu>, Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes:
>>From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
>>
>>Hi again :)
>>Joe wrote (in part):
>
> [Jose Prose deleted]

Sometimes I think I rise to the heights of Jose Poetry :-)

> I don't remember seeing that post of yours.

I do, it was in response to a New Republic piece on the peyote
decision and the changes that might come with the upcoming decision on
Santeria practices in Florida.  Justice Scalia noted in the peyote
decision that if a law with a secular purpose has an incidental effect
on religion, it should be upheld -- intent therefore was at issue in
the case.  O'Connor noted that it was naive to think that the states
would actually make it known that their intent was to infringe
religious liberty, so argued that the question should be intent and
effect (she thought the gov't interest for the law was important
enough to uphold the ban on peyote use by those whose religion uses it
as sacrament).  Intent is therefore at issue in the peyote case and in
Bray, but for different reasons -- the principle is therefore not
really the same for both cases.

> In any case, some laws (including parts of the Constitution)
> are about intent, and others are about effects. The 1985 bill
> that was relevant in Bray (sorry--1985 is the name of the bill,
> not its year of passage!) mentions some specifics about intent.
> The Establishment clause of the Bill of Rights doesn't, nor does
> Free Exercise clause.

I'd like to know what the law actually said; didn't you tell someone
you had the Bray decision, which probably mentioned its wording?

> In Schempp and Murray the Court used the standard of "purpose
> and primary effect." NEITHER of those may be to further a
> religious purpose if a law is to pass this test.

Lemon v. Kurtman supplies the current test, though I think it tends to
complicate matters

> I don't know of later cases restricting the test to purpose only,
> but I'd be quite interested to hear of any.

I believe Stone v. Graham which via per curiam disallowed the hanging
of the Ten Commandments in a classroom by itself based its decision
solely on purpose.

>
> Again, keep in mind that the Bray case was not a constitutional
> case at all (well, it did perhaps involve some constitutional
> questions tangentially). It was a case about an old federal statute.
>
> Jamie

one updated by the Congress using "class" as the factor of review when
by now "class" means under the 14th amendment much more than "blacks".
The 1985 update helps to show that women and abortion can very well be
at issue here.

      -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:31:17 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Homosexuals in the Military
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >Now is the time to buy stock in "Soap-on-a-Rope".  After this, a dropped
> >bar of soap is history.

> >---Robert

>         My best friend in High School was gay, and I never feared for my butt.

> Brett'
> :)

One of my best friends right now is gay. I don't fear him in any way.


From the Desk of Dave,
Apparatchik of Dictionaries
  (and conspiracy theorist)
(aka Larva, Trip Buster, Dave Zero, Didactic Dave)
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:00:52 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> -T:

Can I play, too?

> Are you *seriously* suggesting that MADONNA is not influential?

Let us look at the music produced in 2020 and THEN decide if she's
influential, OK? I mean, there are more bands out there right now
who took serious inspiration from the Velvet Underground than from
Elvis.

> Have you been to a junior high school lately?

Current fads have little to do with lasting influence, IMHO.

> --NINAR Kerry


Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
I belong the _____ generation, but
I can take it or leave it each time
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 20 Jan 1993 23:56:03 -0600
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject:      sub
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Sub Politics;  Marc C. Wilson
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET>
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, 27 Jan 1993 22:06:38 -0500
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [Jamie's response]
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt462546@drew.edu>, Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes:
>>From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
>
>>OK, I think.  Did he explain how he arrived at that conclusion (this has
>>probably been covered already, but I'm slow)?  Was it that women-seeking-
>>abortions aren't a class (didn't I read that somewhere?)?  Or that OpRes
>>wasn't "targeting"?  Or that no infringement occurred?
>
> The first. Women-seeking-abortions are not a class in the relevant sense.
>
> Actually, I think Scalia was correct about THAT.
>
> Jamie

the law speaks of directly or indirectly blocking the equal protection
of privilege and immunities.  it also speaks of this being applied to
a person or a class of persons -- not just a class is at issue.
Operation Rescue indirectly is blocking the equal protection of women by
their actions even if its because they think abortion is wrong not
that women are inferior.  They still are intending to target a class
(women, who here are seeking abortions) to infringe their rights
because they think women can't practice these rights. Abortion is
after all is partly an equal protection right.  The fact that the
women in question are seeking abortion therefore is not the key
matter, but the fact they are women trying to practice their equal
protection rights and that Operation Rescue is infringing on them --
the fact it is abortion related does not change matters.

 -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:33:16 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Nanny and Zoe
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        I think part of the reason why John and Mary Doe didn't like her is
because of the feeling that she never would have paid the taxes & penalties if
not for the nomination, and that she would have done it again, given the
chance.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET>
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:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:34:21 -0500
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Thurgood Marshall, rest in peace
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt459255@drew.edu>, league for fighting chartered accountancy <SW
   EDE@DRYCAS.BITNET> writes:
> Thurgood Marshall, former supreme court justice and giant in the struggle
> for civil rights, died yesterday, at the age of 84.
>
> Gary W. Olson

   Yes, RIP to this giant who may be the best justice in 20th century
known for his great deeds both on and off the court.  His time on the
Supreme Court was a great value for the his outlook of the world and
legal exeriences.  His skills was often forgotten -- 30 years as a
criminal and equal protection litigater for the court, ordinary courts
in the South, and in Korea.  He was an appellate judge for 4 years,
solicter general for over two, and then a member of the Supreme court
(his replacement had much less legal or judical experience).  His
value on the court was not just symbolic, but also important in the
areas of race, the death penalty, equal protection analysis, and crime
issues.  Much is said about his laziness and need to rely clerks etc.,
but this ignores the fact that clerks usually do much of the research
anyway (conservatives really can't complain about this;  Dave Savage
in _Turning Right_ said though he would hate to admit it [TG said he
wouldn't take the post of dog catcher from Reagan], he is much like
Reagan in this regard) -- but it is true his views and voice was more
important than his legal craftmentship.  I wondered why he didn't
swear in Gore as was planned, now I sadly know why (it seems TG's son
works in the VP office, his other in the Virginia police dept.).

    Linda Greenhouse's article today on Marshall used many quotes from
the book _Thurgood Marshall: Justice for All_, which I recently read
and enjoyed.  It contains essays on TM (his work on the appellate
court and as solicter general sadly is not covered), an essay on his
legal views, and some memorable decisions/dissents.  Good reading
though a straightforward bio might let you know the man fuller, this
gives you a decent view on him.  The Supreme Court needs more
experience people like him, especially on the left and libertarians.

   -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 09:40:28 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: William Jefferson Clinton -- anagram
              28 Jan 1993 09:14:03 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

On Thu, 28 Jan 1993 09:14:03 -0400 The Integral Differential said:

>>I am not sure what you are saying.  *I* say that
>>capital gains (minus the inflation part) should be
>>treated (at least), and in effect taxed, exactly like
>>earned income.
>>--KAT
>
>        Once we have decided to roll it into the "income" category, do we
>simply do so as a flat amount N or say the first M dollars of cap gains is X%,
>the second L is Y%, etc.

ADD it to the income and then apply the tax, similar to
what we do for dividends and interests on passbooks.

>     Because if we simply add it as a flat amount, a windfall will end up as
>a huge tax burden to the lower income people (as it catapaults them into the
>highest tax bracket).

Don't forget income averaging.  At any rate if I win a
lottery, I don't get to keep the first $10K and then be
taxed 5% on the next 10 and so on.  Why is capital
gains such a sacred cow?  I tell you why: because most
middle income and almost all poor people never much of
capital gains.  Because mostly rich people have capital
gains.

>        Do we really want to do that, or let them keep most of the first $10k,
>a little less of the next $10k, and even less of greater amounts...in other
>words, as a parallel category to income.

And if I worked a SECOND job to better my family's life
I don't get to have a parallel category to FIRST job
incomes.  Why is capital gains such a scared cow?  Why?

>Brett'

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 11:20:48 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [Jamie's response]

>From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

Everyone wants in on this game, huh?

>If we were talking about PEOPLE seeking to eat
>ice-creams, I would have agreed with you 100%.
>However, how about denying ice-cream to only blacks?

?
That would obviously be a classification on the basis of race.

>A couple things bother me.  (1) Only womyn seek
>abortion.  (2) though all womyn may not seek abortion,
>all have the potential of seeking one.  So to deny
>abortion to a few who are seeking it now is to deny to
>all or any womyn who might seek it in the future.

This was essentially O'Connor's argument. Congratulations.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 09:00:30 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: secular humanism?
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Where did the Court rule that secular humanism is a religion ?
>
>That sounds more like a dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987?)
>
>Did you have another case in mind ?
>
>                                   P.S.Ruckman,Jr.

        Hey, can I form a church (and thus become tax free :)?

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:56:04 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: I'm Ba-aaaack...
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        Dreck, blech, ptooey!

        I guess having someone read a poem every 16 years is to remind
ourselves of why we don't have them every time.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU