HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:28:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Survey

Julie -

        Don't expose all the secrets of the survey!!!  People may answer
whatever they wish - even if it appears not to make sense.  If it does make
sense to them, well, we have yet another interesting "find" from the survey!


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:29:10 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Wages and productivity

Missing money?  Try such places as Owner's Equity, Common Stock, and
Preferred Stock.

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:11:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Gays and lesbians in the military

KAT:
        In reply to your post about seperate shower facilities:

        While it may be true that if the ban is lifted, more gays would enter
the military, there are thousands already serving.  I would be interested to kno
w if there have been any *incidents* involving homosexuals in military bathroom
facilities in the past.

        My thought here is that since homosexuals are no more sexually active
on the average than heterosexuals, and there haven't been problems in the past,
why the concern?

        BTW - I do feel that the basis of fear of integrating the forces was
just as unwarranted as it is now about gays and lesbians...there is no evidence
to suggest that homosexuals are more apt to commit sexual offenses than hetero-
sexuals.  THe problem, as was correctly pointed out earlier by someone else on
the list, lies with the people who fear homosexuals - not with gays and lesbians
.

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Organization: Cuz's House of Dis-Information
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:51:54 EST
From:         Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gays and lesbians in the military
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "pasc1961@ALTAIR.SELU.EDU" at Nov 17, 92 6:31 pm

While under delusions of grandeur, pasc1961@ALTAIR.SELU.EDU spewed:

|       You are right.  Slick Willie is in for many rude awakenings.  As far as
allowing gays in the military, I really hope he's not that stupid.

        Well, I guess he is that stupid, as it is going to happen.

|Speaking as
| a United States Marine, I do not want to serve in peacetime, much less during
| wartime, with homosexuals.  I don't think that any of my fellow Marines would
| want to either.  Hell, I'd probably shoot the queer bastard if I were in a
| combat situation with him/her/it.  I don't think Slick Willie realizes that
| a gay can't kill the enemy by hitting them with his purse...

***Really subjective mode on***

        I really hope that the majority of people in the Marines are
not this stupid. If they are, we are in real trouble.
**mode off**

        Chris, a few facts.

        1) You already serving with homosexuals. Just because they
don't flaunt the fact doesn't mean that they aren't.
        2) Whether or not your fellow Marines agree with you are not
is irrelevant.
        3) I hope you are more intelligent than to kill someone due to
thier lifestyle. However, there are places for murderers.
        4) I must inform you that your stereotypical views of
homosexuality is not true. The only difference between "normal"
heterosexuals and "abnormal" homosexuals is thier sex life. Just as
any heterosexual can be a "peace-loving pacifist", any homosexual can
be a "warmongerer." The truth is, I am heterosexual. I would fit
nicely into that peace-loving catagory. I know some homosexuals that
are the most belligerent people you could meet up with. Lets stop
dealing in stereotypes.

--
 Cousin It                                          cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
"I can't believe I find a way, to make it thru this hell everyday, slip,
   slipping my reality slips away, sleep, sleeping seems the only way"
                       -Mordred  "Falling Away"-
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:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:09:45 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Gays in the military: last chance

>>The big problem in the gay in the military issue is showers, and fear
>>that conduct will come to play that will be a problem.

>No.  The big problem here is NOT conduct.  The issue is sexual harrassment.

>If any private employer in the country forced women to live in close quarters
>with men, the EEOC would be all over them in a heartbeat.  Even though no man
>is necesarily sexually attracted to any particular woman, such living
>arrangements violate any sense of personal privacy and dignity.

Now wait just a minute here... we're talking about the armed services,
correct?

Just what does dignity and privacy have to do with an organization that
as a matter of "training" seeks to rip apart any sense of individual
dignity and privacy in order to rebuild those concepts in the mind of
the individual as a part of his/her relation to a group of similar
individuals? They call it "boot camp."

The ordinary rules of employment conduct (for better or worse) just
are not in force here, so any comparison is absurd.

>I would
>strongly suspect that many peole on this list would agree that such an employer
>should be forced to stop using such living arrangements based on the reason
>that even if no actual rape ever took place, the mere fact that the women would
>be leered at and would feel uncomfortable would be enough to make the policy
>intolerable.

Why do you think that their facilities (showers, toilets, bunks) don't
even have the slightest vestige of a means of maintaining "privacy"
in the first place? It is precisely to cause this dynamic that you
refer to.

What other employer is in some legal sense allowed to physically abuse
and brainwash (with the use of physical punishments) its employees?

What other employer can deny the employee the right to cease employmemt?

What other employer has his own separate legal system that has the
authority to kill his employees?

Give it up!

>JasonZ

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:06:00 -0500
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Barbara and Hillary
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Did anyone see C-SPAN's little clip of Barbara Bush and Hillary
meeting at the White House?  As is their custom, C-SPAN kept
their cameras rolling to catch all the "boring" stuff before and after the
photo op.

Barbara stood around at the White House door, chatting with reporters
while she waited for Hillary.  IMHO, she seemed like a woman who just
wanted to be out of the White House in the worst way.  She was friendly,
but you could tell she just wanted OUTTA THERE!  (Can you blame her,
really?)

She was asked a couple questions about what if she thought Hillary
would be a good children's advocate.  "Great," she said rather tersely.
What did she think Hillary would do?  "Ask her," Barbara said
curtly with a dismissive wave of her hand.  The whole impression I got
was that Barbara Bush didn't give a damn about Hillary and just wanted
to get the whole photo op over with.

Or maybe she was just PO'd at the press.  Who knows.

Anyhow, Hillary arrives, beaming, and Barbara gives her some cute little
reference about "watch out for these guys" (i.e., the press).  Hillary
says happily, "Oh, I know what you mean."

Barbara just smiles...("yeah, sure you do")
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Organization: Cuz's House of Dis-Information
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:40:03 EST
From:         Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Flag Burning
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              92 12:28 am

While under delusions of grandeur, andy spewed:

| I'm not arguing nation vs country, I'm arguing flag vs anything else. True
| the pledge includes the nation, but it also includes cloth. You say it's
| because the cloth is a symbol, does that mean that as a Canadian I should
| pledge alliegance to maple leaves (or maple trees), beavers and RCMP officers
or Poutine? Perhaps the French should pledge allegiance to long pieces of bread
| and red wine and cheese, or the British to lions or the Germans to beer and
| lederhosen?

        I pledge allegiance, to apple pies, baseball, Chevrolet and
mom, the symbols of America....

--
 Cousin It                                          cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
"I can't believe I find a way, to make it thru this hell everyday, slip,
   slipping my reality slips away, sleep, sleeping seems the only way"
                       -Mordred  "Falling Away"-
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:04:36 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: C.E. not B.C.

In article <01GR8JN1UDLU003CFW@EKU.BITNET>, STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET (Coed Naked
Trivial Pursuit is the Game For All Ages!) says:
>
> This has got to be the most ridiculous argument i have come across in
>some time.  Who honestly cares what the particular denomination we use
>for years. I am sick and tired of the politically correct garbage. Hell..
>I like to offend some people now and again...it makes life fun. That is
>excatly
>what it is.... politically correct garbage... you never see a university as
>a whole willing to put itself on the line anymore and it makes me angry. No

Well, considering that current biblical thought holds that Christ wasn't
actually born 1992 years ago, it would be pretty silly if they did!


>one is willing to stand up for anything... now you may all be wondering what
>has this got to do with the denomination of years... but this has a lot to do
>with it because this is the only nation where the problem seems to be
>occuring.
>Now I know there are lots of religions in this nation and some can feel one
>way or the other about it, but.... it is the most common in our dealings as
>a nation, many of the western countries use BC and AD and even the countries

Oh really, when is the last time you have heard anyone refer to this year as
1992 AD?  People havent appending AD to their current year or indeed to any
year in the last millenium or so for several decades.



>that do not use it have not gone to war about it! Why can't we ignore the
>whole damned thing!
>
>
>                        John Stith (Freud)
>                Bitnet:         STUSTITH@EKU
>                Internet:       Coming Soon (hopefully)
>                                STUSTITH@eku.acs.eku.edu
>
>
>     "Life is much to funny to take seriously!" or " We Apologize for the
>      Inconvenience" or "a sketch about idiots! Called the Idiot's
>      Sketch"
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:07:44 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Gays and lesbians in the military
 <1992Nov17.183100.1085@altair.selu.edu>

In article <1992Nov17.183100.1085@altair.selu.edu>, pasc1961@altair.selu.edu
says:
>
>In article <POLITICS%92111608340007@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, K=A*T
><MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> writes:
>> This may very well become Clinton's first rude awakening.
>>
>        You are right.  Slick Willie is in for many rude awakenings.  As far
>as
>allowing gays in the military, I really hope he's not that stupid.  Speaking
>as
>a United States Marine, I do not want to serve in peacetime, much less during
>wartime, with homosexuals.  I don't think that any of my fellow Marines would
>want to either.  Hell, I'd probably shoot the queer bastard if I were in a
>combat situation with him/her/it.  I don't think Slick Willie realizes that
>a gay can't kill the enemy by hitting them with his purse...
>

So you put your petty prejudices above serving your nation in it's time of
need, perhaps you should resign from the marines and make room for a patriot.

>
>                                                Christopher K. Gilbert
>                                                pasc1961@altair.selu.edu
>                                                Bob Dole in 1996!
>
>******************************************************************************
>*
>  THE VIEWS EXPRESSED HERE ARE MY OWN AND ARE NOT ENDORSED BY THE UNITED
>STATES
>MARINE CORPS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, OR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE...
>( even though they probably should be...)
>******************************************************************************
>*
>
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:26:29 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan and Facts

In article <POLITICS%92111914503474@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>,
STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU says:
>
>I agree with Andy: lies repeated often enough and loudly enough become
>truths.  That's exactly what Clinton and the media did to the economy.
>
>-Rich

No, thats what 15 or so million unemployed and an administration that doesn't
care did.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:13:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gays and lesbians in the military
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Kat:

In fact, you combine someoe with _anyone_ other than their sexual
partner(s) for months at a time and you will sometimes get some
lust happening, but it has nothing to do with sexual orientation
as much as a "substitution" of lust.  There are lots of situations
in which otherwise heterosexual men would have sex with other men
in extended all-male situations.  But somehow people see fit to
blame this all on gayfolk and ignore everything else.

The simple fact of that matter, once again, is that the military
is a work environment.  If someone doesn't like being looked at
they can turn around or ask someone else in the shower to turn
the other direction.  I've develioped a prettuy good skill over
the years of just not seeing anything because I do not _want_
to.  I don't think this is rare.  And my guess is that once anyone
is in combat, they will see the people next to them as SOLDIERS,
not "men" or "women" or some object of affection, and that is
where it really matters.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 09:17:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: guns and linquistics

>Your kid wrote that?
julie,
yeah he wrote it. he's extremely bright - i won't brag abt. his sat scores
but let's just say they weren't perfect. he has an e-mail acct, but very
little time since he goes to school here full time and has 2 part time jobs.
we communicate over the vax more than we do in person. he lives w/me, but i
rarely see him. he has a life dontchaknow. i wish he'd get on this list too.
-linda

>--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:11:30 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Intent, Consent, and Statistics

From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>

>> Would Jamie replace approval of the Supreme Court Justices
>> by the Senate with the approval of the President?

> No. But Jamie would think it was absurd to object to a
> Supreme Court Justice on the grounds that he was not elected.

But a Supreme Court Justice is approved by bodies (the President
and the Senate) which are both elected AND have been given the
authority to just do that.

But Hillary Clinton is only approved by the President (an elected
body) without the president having been granted the authority
to do that.

I know I am splitting hair now but I hope you appreciate the
(logical) difference.

> Jamie

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:41:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Movie Review

Hello, Sue!  Good last name - thank God you spell it right!

Oh, and about the Dracula analogy - I'm glad that finally we have people
in Washington screwing each other - instead of the whole country!


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:18:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Reagan and Facts

Loren:

        You are one of the very few who are slowly beginning to change my mind
about Brown.  You seem intelligent, thoughtful, articulate, original and
creative.  The only thing you have in common with most of the Brown people on
this list is Brown.


Keep up the good posts!

-T.
From: jfisher@NETXWEST.COM (Jonathan Fisher)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Pregnant women in the military
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:28:13 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> KAT doesn't believe that 16% of women at sea in the Navy could get pregnant
> in any given year.  KAT believes that they had to have been protected and/or
> on the pill!  Are you laying out the milk and cookies for him this year, KAT?
>
>
> -T.
>
Actually I wanted to steer clear of this thread because I found it boring
and irrelevant but I wanted to make a comment here anyway!

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but didn't that 16% figure come from
last year, i.e. 1991.  If I recall correctly Desert Storm hit at the
beginning of that year.  It is my understanding that there were some
ships sent to the Gulf which were hospital ships and were staffed
primarily with women.  Doonsberry wrote a couple of weeks worth of
comic strips regarding this event.  Here you have a couple of shiploads
of women and soldiers who were brought to the ship because of injuries.
Hmmm. Now what is likely to occur here!
I submit to you that if in fact those stats are from 1991, they are skewed
(not spewed, skewed).  So compare them to the stats from 1990 or better
yet 1989 for some semblance of normalcy.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.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, 19 Nov 1992 09:35:34 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>Okay... this is an example of what I was talking about, T.
>>
>>I do not think that the method Clinton used to avoid the draft was
>>noble while a lot of people instead used more direct methods such
>>as burning their draft cards or leaving the country.
>
>So now Julie is equating "noble" with "direct methods".  Apparently,

        No, she's not.  Lighten up!  All she is saying is that she does not
approve of his *methods*.
        So the "love all of him" arguments are just so much ascii noise.

...
>What you fail to realize is that the act of avoidance was more than mere
>protest, more than a badge you wear to gain admittance to the right victims'
>clubs - when you dodge - by whatever means - you're stopping them from
>having another body to throw into the grinder!  You're making sure that Wall
>has *one less* name on its granite face!  You are doing something *concrete*
>to stop the killing!

        Right, and Anita Hill did the women's movement a big favor by waiting
ten years to open her mouth.
        Not.

        Some people want to make heroes out of anyone who even remotely
resembles their cause.  I don't think Bill Clinton's political manueverings
would have won him any friends in the protest movement.  They would have said
"glad you don't have to go" but I don't think they'd be too thrilled with his
manipulations.  That's the kind of stuff people were fighting against.
        Not all, of course (to head off the inevitable counterexample).  There
are, after all, a segment of every movement who believe in "the ends justify
the means".

>What kind of "serious risk" are you talking about?  And as I wrote before,
>ANYONE who avoided service in that war *IS* a hero to the peace movement.

        Even Quayle?

...
>call.  There are only two types of individuals of draft age at the time the
>peace movement would *not* classify as heros: those who agreed with the war but
>got out of it anyway; and those who disgraced humanity with their savagery
>and lawlessness in that horrible place.

        What about those that simply fought for something they believed in?

>All I can say is: since I didn't put words in your mouth (and frankly
>never have), the only words in your mouth are yours -you know, the ones
>you're eating.
>-T.

        Argument by assertion again?

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:17:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Words

Julie:

        I think Jonathan meant that Herschenson's *views* on homosexuality
(apparently he is rabidly against it) showed that he had a hint of
Fascism.



-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:51:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: guns and linquistics
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Your kid wrote that?

Can he get his own e-mail account?  He's more coherent and seems more
informed than most of us!

:-)

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:09:50 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Wages and productivity

>>Wages have fallen even though productivity has risen.  The surplus
>>has gone into benefits which very often the government is requiring
>>such as Social Security, retirement plans, medical insurance, etc.
>
>I'll bet this has happened somewhere.  Here in the mecca of public
>sector employment in Maryland, it hasn't.

Increased spending on govt employees doesn't necessarily translate
into increased wages for govt employees, either on average or in
specific.

BTW - Shoving money into SS will only show up in SS dept.

>Enough whining from me.  I would "negotiate" with my employer but
>my employer *cannot* increase my pay.  My profession is primarily
>a public sector job, and the entire east coast is in similar economic
>condition.  I have other reasons for not wanting to move, not the
>least of which is being tied to a refinanced house.  I would have
>to be paid "a lot" more money to make it worthwhile to move.

Maybe the good people of MD are saying that what Steve is doing isn't
worth much to them.  Why is that their fault and why should they
change?  After all, living in MD is worth quite a bit to Steve and he
prefers the deal they're offering to his alternatives, so it obviously
isn't too bad.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU