HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  BITNET%"sportpsy@templevm"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.sportpsy
Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:04:00 EST
From:         RAGLINJ@IUBACS.BITNET
Subject:      altitude training

Endurance athletes who train at altitude are at an advantage compared
to those who train exclusively at sea level, regardless of whether
competition is held at altitude or sea level.  Training at altitude
results in an increase in both plasma volume and hematocrit, which
act to enhance the oxygen carrying capacity of the cardiovascular
system.  Intensive training at sea level also results in these
adaptations, but not to the same degree as found with altitude
training.

However, it still is not entirely clear whether the oxygen carrying
capacity of the cardiovascular system or the ability of working
muscles to extract oxygen is the limiting factor in endurance
performance.
J. Raglin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.vmxa-l
Date:         Sun, 16 Aug 1992 08:45:54 IST
From:         Anthony Waller <P85014@BARILVM.BITNET>
Subject:      VTAM Storage Problem
Comments: To: ibm-main@ricevm1.BITNET, vmxa-l@uga.BITNET

  We are migrating to VTAM 3.3 (9202) from VTAM 3.2 under VM/XA 2.1.
ON VTAM Initialization we receive:

IST001I VTAM START REJECTED - UNABLE TO ALLOCATE STORAGE
**ERROR** VTAM initialization failed

  We are running with 14M and I've tried 16M with no help.
This morning I tried setting CSALIMIT=0 - also no help.
We tried running the Storage Analysis diskette, but it seems to have
a bug :-(

  We run another VM/XA system as a roof for MVS/ESA with a VTAM which
does very little and there the conversion to VTAM 3.3 went smoothly
with no hint of this problem.

  Any ideas?   Thanks.

-------
Anthony Waller             BITNET:    P85014@BARILVM.BITNET
Bar-Ilan University        INTERNET:  P85014@vm.biu.ac.il
Israel.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.vmxa-l
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:24:07 +1000
From:         Alex Kay <alex@MACADAM.MPCE.MQ.EDU.AU>
Subject:      CPUID of IBM9121-210
Comments: To: vmxa-l@uga.cc.uga.edu

Hello again,
To the users of IBM9121 model 210 and 320.
Could you please tell me what is the answer of your VM system
for Q CPU
 Thanks very much
Alex Kay
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: University of California at Santa Barbara
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.vmxa-l
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 08:55:11 PDT
From:         "Dwight M. McCann" <DWIGHT@UCSBVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Cure for ABEND IIO003 with Alternate Nucleus Mod

The IIO003 failure that occurs after maintenance between PUT 9102 and 9203
is caused by a logic change in the way that RDEVAFLG,RDEVCPVL is set in
HCPIIS.  It appears that rather than setting this flag for all CP OWNED
volumes (at seqno 05050000) in HCPIISAD, it is set in HCPIISDV (at seqno
10797660) as the result of a compare of the label against SYSVOLD.  SYSVOLD
is redefined by the ALTNUC mod to contain the SYSRES rather than the IPL
volume.  An additional test for SYSLVOL (the redefined SYSRES volume) should
be made for setting RDEVAFLG,RDEVCPVL.  As we found out the hard way, the
unmodified logic works if the SYSRES and IPL volumes are the same (as was
always the case in our second-level system).

Dwight McCann
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.vmxa-l
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:10:32 EDT
From:         Brian Eliot <USERALVE@RPITSMTS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: CPUID of IBM9121-210

> Could you please tell me what is the answer of your VM system
> for Q CPU

The CPU ID for a 9121-210 is

  A1ssssss 91210000

and for a 9121-320

  A3ssssss 91210000

where "ssssss" is the processor unit serial number.  Q CPUID will
show the high-order byte (version code) as FF.

Brian Eliot
Information Technology Services
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.vmxa-l
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:19:49 +1000
From:         Alex Kay <alex@MACADAM.MPCE.MQ.EDU.AU>
Subject:      an exec on IBM 9121-210
Comments: To: VMXA-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

Hi everybody on IBM9121-210
Could you run the following exec and tell me what you get after
Ready T=
Thankyou in advance
Alex Kay

/**/
i=0
address cms q t
do forever
   i=i+1
   if i=1000000 then leave
end
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Office of University Computing
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.vmxa-l
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:51:37 EST
From:         Nick Laflamme <NLAFLAMM@IRISHVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: an exec on IBM 9121-210
              13 Aug 1992 22:19:49 +1000 from <alex@MACADAM.MPCE.MQ.EDU.AU>

>Ready; T=74.39/74.99

XA SP 2.1 system, moderately loaded.

Nick

* NLAFLAMM@IRISHVMA.BITNET
* Dominique.P.Laflamme.1@nd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.vmxa-l
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:08:21 +1000
From:         Alex Kay <alex@MACADAM.MPCE.MQ.EDU.AU>
Subject:      an exec on IBM9121-320 this time
Comments: To: vmxa-l@uga.cc.uga.edu

Hi everybody on IBM9121-320
Could you run the following exec and tell me what you get after
Ready T=
Thankyou in advance
Alex Kay

/**/
i=0
address cms q t
do forever
   i=i+1
   if i=500000 then leave
end
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Office of University Computing
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.vmxa-l
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:52:17 EST
From:         Nick Laflamme <NLAFLAMM@IRISHVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: an exec on IBM 9121-210
              13 Aug 1992 22:19:49 +1000 from <alex@MACADAM.MPCE.MQ.EDU.AU>

Sorry, world, about that last posting....  Another private response
goes public.

(Eric, I need LISTSERV to respond intelligently to an interactive
message, "Wait, I didn't mean to send that to VMXA-L." :-)

Nick

* NLAFLAMM@IRISHVMA.BITNET
* Dominique.P.Laflamme.1@nd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 18 Aug 1992 09:48:14 -0500
From:         "j.b. cormier" <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      1st Night at the Convention

I have a few questions/points to raise after hearing
Buchanan's speech.

1) He mentioned that as soon as Bush graduated
he enlisted.  Buchanan made it sound like it was some
great act and that anyone who didn't/doesn't do the same
is less than fit for the White House.

Does this mean that because I didn't drop out of college
or take a leave of absense in order to enlist during
the Persian Gulf War that I am less than fit for political
office?

2) Wasn't Bush in the Navy?  He was a pilot.  If he was
in the Navy, which is what I think is the case, doesn't
that make one wonder after the recent Tailhook scandal?
I realize that there may not have been(and probably weren't)
any women in the Navy at the time, but it makes one wonder.

3) Why did Buchanan go on about Ted Kennedy?

4) If the "central organizing idea of this Republic is
freedom", then why did he come down so hard on gay/lesbian
rights, women's rights, etc?

5) Isn't his statement about "tak[ing] back our culture and
our country" rather exclusive?

6) The Berlin Wall came down in spite of Bush.

7) If the Democrats attacked Barbara Bush as much as they
attacked Hilary Clinton, there would be hell to pay.

Observations on Reagan later.

Json
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: direct mail from jail
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:11:12 GMT

Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:
>I don't have an answer to that.  Contrary to popular opinion,
>I *don't* have *all* the answers, I just know the One who does :-) .

Do me a favor, willya Kerry?  Ask 'the One who does' to tell you
what your position is on individual rights with respect to various
controversial activities.  Then let us know.

--Jimbo, intending to nag until he gets an answer
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Is Bill getting anxious? and is NBC less than objective?
Date: 22 Aug 92 02:24:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Anyone check out NBC's later coverage of the Bush 
acceptance speech? The NBC staff was receiving fax replies from Bill 
Clinton is response to the different items that Bush was mentioning in 
his acceptance speech. And then NBC was airing these faxed replies as 
they were still covering Bush's speech.

	Is Bill getting so anxious that he cannot wait till the next 
day to reply?

	Is NBC so on Clinton's side that they would even interrupt 
their coverage of one candidates acceptance speech in order to present 
the views of another candidate?


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu


ps:	Will the Clinton staff ever answer Stuttering John's questions? 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:46:59 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Night 3 at the ol' RNC

Roger, come on:

Let's be fair.  Did *you* know whether Lawrence Welk was alive or dead
in February of 1992?  Did *anybody*?  (other than Welk, his immediate
family, and friends.)?

Do you *really* expect Bush to keep track of every faded celebrity on
the face of the planet?  That's not his job; that's Geraldo's job.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:27:37 -0500
From:         "j.b. cormier" <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Bush and Van Buren

I work in the Office of Public Information at Rhodes College,
which handles media requests from outside sources seeking
college professors and the like who can be sources of info
for a story.

We just got one in that is very interesting.  Here is the
request:

"The reporter is doing a historical piece comparing Martin
Van Buren and George Bush.  Before Bush was elected in 1988,
Van Buren was the last sitting vice president to be elected
president in his own right.  In 1992, the comparison is being
revisited and the reporter wants to speak with academics
familiar with Van Buren's presidency.  Van Buren did lose
his re-election bid, and apparently grappled with economic woes,
the end of the Cold War with England, and the rise of the
women's movement."

I am not looking for anyone to talk with this reporer, but
am curious if any listmembers know more about this than I.

It sounds very interesting and fascinating.

Json
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:46:51 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: George Bush on abortion

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> When I said  they "extend forgiveness," the "they" I was referring to
> is prolifers.  The *opportunity* for forgiveness can be extended by
> human beings, but the forgiveness itself comes only from God.

Could you further explain what "opportunity" for forgiveness
means?  And this is too much for me to swallow.  You mean
if I abort my pregnancy, it is not enough for me to ask
forgiveness from my God, rather I need to look for pro-lifers
to extend the "opportunity" for forgiveness to me.  I cannot
believe you think like that.

> What would I do if my daughter said she was contemplating killing her
> 2-year old daughter?  I would do everything possible to stop her.  At
> the moment, that means I can get the authorities to do so.  At the moment,
> Bush does not have that option with the act of abortion, and he knows it.
> The question was not asked as "If abortion were illegal and......"  It was
> asked as a hypothetical under real-world current conditions.

There is a whole range of things in between telling your daughter
not to do it but you will support her any way AND stopping her
legally.  Another poster articulated all those in-between options
very nicely and I have been suggesting similar things all along,
but you have never addressed them.

And you didn't answer my question: how do you think a prochoicer
would answer if the same question was asked?  I am suggesting that
the answer would be more or less the same suggesting that prolifers
act like prochoicers when it comes to their own families.

And you are right, the question was not "If abortion were illegal
and......"  OK, I am asking THAT question now.  How would a prolifer
react if abortion was illegal and his daughter said she was contemplating
having an abortion.

> ---Missy P 2 B

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:11:53 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: GOP & equality
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              20 Aug 1992 12:03:08 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

On Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:03:08 -0400 Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet said:

> I would be much happier with the Republican ticket if the roles were
> reversed.  Whether you like him or not, Quayle has backbone.  The lack of
> which is one of Bush's major flaws.

Hence President Reagan's comments about choosing Bush as the lesser
of two evils despite him being a wimp.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:27:44 -0500
From:         "j.b. cormier" <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Slips of the tongue

Did I say that GOPers were the only ones to
have slips of the tongue?  I think not!

I merely didn't want to go on and on and on
listing everyone under the sun who has done
so.  Maybe if I had done a dissertation on
the subject I could have posted that.

:)
vox populi, vox dei-
j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:01:34 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      logic czar

 Jumbo,

 I don't have time today to respond to your last post with any amount of
 due justice.

 I'm afraid these few sentences will have to suffice.

 You appear to be a pompous, self-inflated, hateful and ignorant bigot.

 Have a good day.

 ---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:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 08:03:37 EST
From:         Scott Adams <SADAMS@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      The Rep. Platform

The Republicans seem to be saying to me, in media comments about the platform,
"Read our lips. Not our platform."
Scott Adams
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:41:38 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: too little too late
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

Fred:
>1. how can you justify decreasing revenues when we are past our ears in
>debt? If income taxes are cut you know that some other form of tax will
>have to be increased to cover the shortfall.(actually, I hope we have a
>longfall; it's my favorite time of year).

Ever heard of spending less ?

[stuff deleted}

>Q: How many psyciatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
>A: Just one, but it takes a long time and the light bulb has to really
>want to change.

How many socialists does it take to change a light bulb ?
It doesn't matter. Socialists never shange anything.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:10:30 CDT
From:         The Life of the Party <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      My *LAST* comment on the Astrodome circus

I just spent five minutes or so listening to Marilyn Quayle speak
at the republicans gathered in Houston. What a waste of time. I
have done that before to get some idea about how republicans think,
but especially after Pat Buchanan's monday speech, I'm not entirely
sure I want to know. The only person in the republican party from which
I would care to hear is William Reilly, and I doubt that his eco-spiel
yesterday was written by him. If he is around in 1996, I hope he
sends someone else to speak for him, because he just isn't a good
speaker. Unfortunately, he is one of a very small number of republicans
who can speak about the environment and not get laughed off the podium.

George Bush has been talking about a shift in the cabinet, and Kemp
is taking that personally. Lets face it - If George messes around
much with his cabinet, it'll look like the last 4 years were a
catastrophic mistake. (Personally, I think that the last 12 years
were a catastrophic mistake, but I realized almost two years ago
that I'm not the voice of the American people.) If George gives that
impression, that is a boost for the Clinton camp. Then again, I don't
think I'm really telling anyone anything they didn't already know.

Someone on NPR today, I think it was Daniel Pinkwater, said that the
best strategy is to look like you're fighting to win but really lose
by a small margin. That way, when the excesses of the 1980s come home
to roost, they will hit that incumbent and the 1996 race will be a
cakewalk. He said that Clinton should go riding in a tank and parole
some rapists, while Bush should continue to be unable to complete a
sentence. Makes sense to me, but no one enters a race to lose.

That's it. I will no longer comment on the GOP Convention. I will let
them go on to, as the former Mayor Dealy once said, "higher and higher
platitudes."


Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Anyone can become ANGRY. That is easy. But to be angry with the
right person, to the right degree, at the right time, foir the right
purpose and in the right way - that is not easy.
               --Aristotle

Disclaimer:  The opinions contained in this post are not the
opinions of the Administration, Faculty, or Student Body of
South Dakota State University.  Hell, they might not even
be mine.

Disclaimer:  .enim eb neve ton thgim yeht ,lleH  .ytisrevinU
etatS atokaD htouS fo ydoB tnedutS ro ,ytlucaF , noitartsinimdA
eht fo snoinipo eht ton era tsop siht ni deniatnoc snoinipo heT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 15 Aug 1992 06:49:00 EST
From:         Jim Ennis <JIM@UCF1VM.BITNET>
Subject:      List management

Well,  I will be here next week anyway, something came up.  But, please
send all future complaints/requests to ANDERSON@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU.  He
will be handling LISTSERV support down here now.

Jim Ennis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 09:58:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: George Bush on Abortion <yawn>

On Mon, 17 Aug 1992 09:19:11 -0400 Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET> said
:
> Their statements about "support" indicated to
> me that while they may be dismayed if their offspring had an
> abortion, they would not be *horrified*.  I then pointed out that
> one *could* conclude from their statements that they do not
> equate abortion with murder.  -andy found that conclusion unacceptable
> as well.  Wouldn' you know the logic-czar-2-be would be out of town?
> I will have to try this on my own.  ;-)
>
> 1) Bush and Quayle do not equate abortion with murder, OR . . .
>
> 2) Murder committed by thier offspring would not horrify them, OR . . .
>
> 3) One cannot conclude anything from what either of them says.
>
> Since we know that they will do *anything* to get re-elected, number
> three is the most obviously true.  (forgive the typo in #2, please).
>
>
> Steve

Well, the murders in Sarajevo don't horrify Bush or Quayle, or me,
either.  The fact is that Bush (not theoretically, but practically)
cannot do anything about them, so he doesn't worry about them.
The same is true about abortion.

-Travis
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:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 08:51:22 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: you will pass to texas...you WILL pass to texas...pass to
              texas...

Gary:
>Here I thought I'd actually be enraged by the Republicans smug, smarmy 'we-
>believe-in-the-family-that-is-if-its-got-a-mommy-and-a-daddy-and-they-ain't-
>promiscuous-or-nothin' family values speeches, but instead I was merely
>bored.

That was precisely my response -- how dare you beat me to it! :)

A couple things I found interesting and instructive, though.  First,
Quayle's discussion of the "family values thing" with the McNeil/Leher
folks actually made sense to me (shock, surprise).  For those who missed
it, he defined what he meant by family values (hard work, integrity,
personal responsibility); pointed out the the major difference between the
parties was not their support of the values themselves, but in their ideas
about the role of government in promoting those values; and illustrated
what he meant with the differences in how the parties treat issues like
school choice, day care, and health care.  Pity the speakers didn't follow
this line of thought.

The other thing I enjoyed was the Republican rep from New Jersey (don't
remember her name) -- she gave me a good feeling for what a socially
moderate/fiscally conservative Republican is about.  I also thought she was
very much on track in her views about the use of the "family values issue"
in the campaign.

Marilyn and Barbara were boring.  I got the feeling Marilyn was trying to
draw a distinction between the Quayle and Bush families and the Clinton and
Gore families, but it didn't work -- at least for me.

Mary Fisher was wonderful.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:52:38 -0500
From:         "j.b. cormier" <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Regrets

Unfortunately I am and will be too busy between now and the time school
actually starts at Rhodes.

The result is that I am going nomail for a week or so.

Can't wait to get back.

Json
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU