HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mit2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MICHAEL ISAAC TEDESCO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:21:47 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Nov6.013845.77072@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, sbc3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SH
AWN BRENDON CREWS) writes:
>In article <01GQSE0ZTUWY000OY3@RHODES.BITNET>, FOXML@RHODES.BITNET (MARTIN FOX)
>writes:
>>>Listen DICK, You talk about grammar and spelling, don't you know that proper
>>nouns (for example your dumb liberal ass name).  So shut up.
>>>                                        Jayce
>>
>>THAT was entirely inappropriate, Jayce, and illustrates your total intolerance
>>and immaturity.  This list is not for flaming -- it's for the exchange of
>>ideas.  If you intend to make insults, do it on another list.  Although
>>some witty exchange is a welcome amusement, to call someone a "DICK" is
>>utterly unacceptable.  Telling someone to "shut up" is equally unacceptable
>>on this list.  If you want to spread your ideas, you must do so without
>>insults such as these.  Otherwise, you have no place on POLITICS.
>>
>>-Martin
>
>WHAT ARE YOU SAYING MARTIN??
>DID JAYCE'S FATHER DIE AND SAY, "MARTIN, YOU STUPID LIBERAL, I WANT YOU TO
>TELL MY SON WHAT HE CAN AND WHAT HE CAN'T SAY BECAUSE YOU ARE SO PERFECT."
>I DON'T THINK SO, SO SAVE YOUR LECTURES FOR SOMEWHERE ELSE.
>
Martin,
    It seems as if you are trying to play a father figure on this network.
Although, it is a respectable attempt.  Please, enough of this nonsense.  If
they wanted guidance, they'd go to thier parents.  We also can go without the
scoldings that you think you're giving out.  Let us just let the stupid
Republicans make fools of themeselves on their own.  If these fools want to
act  like immature baby's, let them.  It only
makes us look better.  Besides we are in control of congress and the
presidency(ha!ha!) as of January 21.  So please, try to keep your comments on
more of the political side and on less of the condescending side.

         Mickey
                     I don't know about '96, lets worry about the present

                     
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:40:16 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Minority President?

>From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
>
>I believe the point Brent was trying to make when he said that if Bush got all
>of Perot's votes he would have won, is that 53% of those who voted did not
>vote for Clinton for one reason or another.  That means that if there were a
>better candidate than Bush, Perot, and Clinton, he or she would gotten more
> votes than Clinton.

No kidding! This is almost as great a revelation as Brent's!

If there were a better candidate, and the voters had recognized the
candidate as better, then that candidate would have gotten more
votes than the worse ones. Wow. More deep thoughts to ponder.

> If Perot were not in the race, most of the Perot
> supporters
>would have voted for President Bush.

Of course, nobody knows whom they would mostly have voted for.
But the evidence points the other way. When Perot was not in the
race, Clinton had a far greater lead. In the days before Nov. 3rd,
as Perot was gaining support, much more of that support came from
Clinton's minions than from Bush's.

Nice try though, Rich.

Jamie
From: 8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (MIKE)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:10:28 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>pat Buchanan--He'll do for America what he did for George Bush

>Bill Clinton--He'll do for America what he did for Arkansas.

>with the various improvements he made like in education,lets hope so.

Like I've said before when you at the bottom you can only go up. It's not
hard to improve on the worst.

Kemp/Bennett '96

------mike.....
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:10:25 -0400
From:         MIKE <8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>
Subject:      Re: APOLOGY TO EVERYONE!!!!!

>Why is it the right that often seems more prone to undermine democracy to
get their way?

Is this just in America that we are taking or is it a more world wide view?
If it is world wide. I'm sure we could pick out one or two cases were the left a
   re equally if not more guilty. The soviet union maybe and it was the American
right that brought democracy there.
--mike..
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 08:51:13 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

*********                                                               cf.edu>

I can't remember - where was Clarence Thomas a judge?  Really - I don't seem to
recall.  Anybody give me a hand?  Jayce?

-T.
**********

  federal court of appeals, as i remember. wasn't there long, though.
a year or two.

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:44:29 EST
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: bounced checks
              10 Nov 1992 11:19:00 EST from <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>

>I have a question-- is the House Bank run on taxpayer money or is it a
>private institution run off of the funds of its members?
>
  The latter.  This was one of the reasons many members didn't want
names released and downplayed the importance of the "scandal" -- because
taxpayer money wasn't invovled.
   todddddddddd
>--Julie

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "Nothin' wrong with her that
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   a hundred dollars won't fix"
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    - TOM WAITS
From: nichols@spss.com (David Nichols)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Oliver North for Senate
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:44:29 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

In article <01GR00LR3NRK003EXD@drew.drew.edu> PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET writes:
>T:
>
>        I never claimed that I knew anything about Virginian politics,
>and basically I could care less, I am from New Jersey, and I will
>placing my interest in the Lautenburg senatorial race in '94.
>
>        I mentioned that a friend of mine, who attends this university
>and is from Virginia, told me of North's possible running.
>
>        I do believe that Virginia is a leaning conservative state.
>In New Jersey, our two senators and governor are Democratic liberals,
>but New Jersey is basically a conservaive state (although Clinton won
>by a slim margin)  In '91, the republicans regained control of the
>state legislature (by a huge margin).  In '93, Governor Florio is out,
>in '94 it's good-bye to Senator Lautenburg, and in '96 it's curtains
>for Senator Bradley.
>
>        There has never been a ideological swing in New Jersey, just
>these Democrats appealed to people, but New Jersey is still a
>Republican State, and I believe the same can be said of Virginia.

I happen to have some information that I gathered around election time
relevant to these claims. As of the 1990 elections, Virginia had a
30/10 democratic to republican split in its state senate, and a 59/39
split in the state house. They were 6/4 in their US house reps and 1/1
in the senate. They also had a democratic governor.

New Jersey: Democratic governor, 2 dem US senators, 8/6 in the house,
23/17 in the state senate and 43/36 in the state house. Again, as of
the end of the 1990 elections.

--
 David Nichols        Senior Statistical Support Specialist         SPSS, Inc.
 Phone: (312) 329-3684     Internet:  nichols@spss.com     Fax: (312) 329-3657
*******************************************************************************
 Any correlation between my views and those of SPSS is strictly due to chance.
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:08:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder. ..

Mike:

        About flag burning: Light up, would you?

Oops! Gee, my editor really IS terrible.  I think that should have read:

        About flag burning: Lighten up, would you?

Golly, we MUST do something about this lousy software!  %-)


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:39:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"

>LET JAYCE SPEAK.  FINALLY THERE IS SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING
>ABOUT.  LET'S HOPE WE CAN MAKE IT THROUGH THESE FOUR MISARABLE YEARS.
>MARSHALL


ohno, not another one (groan).
don't you know it's impolite to shout?

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:13:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: abortion (was Calooh! Callay!)
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Julie:

        C'mon, give me a break, I have only been on this list for a
week now, but I will make the effort not to repeat entire passages.

-Paul
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:29:54 GMT
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: World View of America
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

andy:
>>First off, whites are the minority in South Africa.
>>
>>Secondly, it is the African National Congress along with a great many
>>more black South Africans who have expressly ENDORSED santions against
>>South Africa.
>
>And, the Zulus, who are also black South Africans, expressly rejected/
>opposed sanctions.
>
>>I do not feel that it is my right to tell them what is good for them.
>
>Sure you do - you're going along with the ANC and rejecting the Zulus.
>(On this issue, you can't go along with both.)
>
>Even if we go with the "The Zulus were bought off" theory, the fact
>remains that they preferred the price they got to sanctions.

No, I go along with the "Buthelezi (sp?) is a tribal chief who has to
take a different standpoint to the ANC to justify his position"
theory.

Dunstan
From: ESPAULDING@COLGATEU.BITNET (ERIC SPAULDING)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: MEDIA WON
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:44:34 GMT
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


  Really?  I was unaware of the profound improvements in unemployment
and the economy.  Could you please be more specific (i.e. cite examples).

  Considering the fact that Clinton hasn't actually taken office yet,
one can only conclude, assuming that what you say is true about the above,
that people are very optimistic about the coming 4 years and have invested
heavily.  Do these improvements correlate to the changes in stock values?



                                     Eric
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:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:09:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Calooh! Callay!
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Oh yeah, Pat Buchannan did wonders for George Bush.  First he wounded him
immensely in the primaries by opposing him and then hurt him even more by
supporting him during the convention.

"Pat Buchannan-- He'll do for America what he did for George Bush."

Sleep tight, folks.

--Julie
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: sexual harrassment
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:19:08 GMT
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

rufus:
>  is there some sort of objective standard by which we could look at
>an action and determine whether or not it is sexual harrassment? or
>is it determined solely by the subjective experience of someone who
>claims to have gone through it?

Thanks for the calm and reasoned response :)  I wish I knew the answers to
your questions.  I know from my own experience that one kind of action can
constitute harrassment in one setting but not in another.  So obviously
there's an element that depends on context.  I don't know of any way to
come up with a "definition" that (1) isn't simply a laundry list of actions
but leaves out context; or (2) isn't so vague as to be unenforceable (I
kind of think the "creates a hostile atmosphere" falls into this category).

Any help out there?  I personally think this is important, and would really
like to hear what others think.

Thanks!
Kerry
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:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 12:41:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Flat Tax Now!
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Paul: Is it true that Boxleter has "hundreds of bounced checks" and is
"corrup" or are those just buzzwords?

Anyway, I do agree with the flat tax, but only if there are no shelters
or paces in which to hide earnings.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 10:28:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Politics and Celebrities

>I've know that Costner, Schwarzenegger and Selleck are long time right-

ohno. costner is right-wing.
i am so depressed. another fantasy bites the dust.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 11:38:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: 1996
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>We should remember that Jim Baker also helped Bush lose to Reagan in
>the primaries in 1980 -- in 1988, it was basically the Willie Horton
>attack ads which won Bush the election- Bush ran on the "I'm not
>Dukakais" platform

        Maybe four years ago is a hard time for people to remember,
but Bush did not win because of his Willie Horton Ad (which wasn't
even his).  Political liberals could not believe that Bush defeated
them in 1988 so they blamed Willie Horton, instead of the real
problem, Michael Dukakis.  The Horton ad ran on CNN a few times, Bush
won by 7,000,000 votes, CNN never has that viewership.  Bush won
because people believed him to be an extension of Reagan.  People
voted Bush because they hoped that he would continue Reagan's programs
(which he did not and why he lost in 1992).  Face facts, Dukakis lost
because the PEOPLE WANTED BUSH IN 1988!!!!

 and it worked, and then, for awhile, Clinton was
>running on the "I'm not Bush" platform, but eventually he developed
>his own voice.  I think a lot more people voted _for_ Clinton than
>against Bush, because of Perot's involvement in the race.  A lot of
>the anti-Bush vote didn't go to Clinton-- Clinton's support was
>a combination of dissatisfaction with Bush and genuine support for
>the man.

        I hope you do not read exiting polling concerning this issue.
There was some genuine support for Clinton but not a lot.  Here is
some polling for you from CNN/Gallop

        53% are either concerned or scared of a Clinton administration
        Over 50% want lower taxes and less gov't spending (not
Clinton's program)
        Over 50% believe that traditional values are important and
should be pursued.

        If these numbers are so, then why didn't Bush win.  Polls
after polls showed that less than 50% of the population thought
Clinton lacked the honesty, character, and integrity to be President.
Bush was trusted more than Clinton in these polls.  The simple truth
is that it was anti-Bush vote and not pro-Clinton.

        -Paul

P.S. I would like to see Clinton's initial favorable ratings.
        Bush's were well over 50% after he was elected, and even rose
to 71% a year before the gulf war.  Bush's average approval rating for
1989, and 1990 (before people even cared about Kuwait) was close to
60%, and shot up in 1991 to 91%, before making its great descend to
40%.  WHo knows where Clinton will be?

>
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:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:55:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Jayce:

I never said that Hill was qualified just because she was a woman.
She _does_ have a law degree, and I _believe_ that she would make a
very good judge based seeing her speak and seeing her ability to
reason.  She is an incredibly perceptive individual.  I think she
would hold the position with honor.

However, I find it annoying that I would be accussed of choosing
Hill for the court because she is a woman, when I never even suggested
such a fact and yet no one challenged that Bush intentionally populated
the Supreme Court with men who were pro-life and pro-business.  Thomas
was choosen specifically as a black male, as a political decision,
becuase Bush and co. knew that Congress was scared of being perceived
as racist and therefore would not reject him.  He is not a qualified
judge.  Even his peers on the Supreme Court have no respect for him.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:01:27 EST
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: I'm going to regret this, I just know it

>From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
>
>Kerry:
>Your message that the flag symbolizes freedom of expression is in fact an
>argument against flag burning.  It would be like a minister burning the Bible.
>Brave men lost their lives protecting our many freedoms in America.  To me,
>burning the flag is like renouncing your citizenship, and thus renouncing those
>freedoms.  What is the point of burning the flag.  If someone doesn't like the
>country, they are free to leave
>-Rich

For those of you who haven't noticed, there was a full moon last night.
that should explain the recent influx of morons.

Rich, when women in the 60's burned their bras  they were saying that
they weren't going to be bound by the restraints of the past. that
they weren't going to allow themselves to be bossed around by
men/society/whatever anymore. they didn't cut their breasts off.
they didn't denouce their womanness.  They merely tore the bras
from their heaving bosoms and declared that being a woman by no means
entitled them to less than their male counterparts.

When people burn icons, they aren't saying that they want the whole
organization/country/church/person to burn, and crumble, but that
they want reform. that they want change. If people didn't like
the country/organization/church they would just leave. But people
feel strongly about making their country/church/organization a
better place, and sometimes actions speak louder than words.

jcs
list dishwasher
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:59:15 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: electoral collage and question from my 9-yr-old

In article <01GQYJC3Z2YO0006SA@BENTLEY.BITNET>, CONWAY_O@BENTLEY.BITNET says:
>
>        Isn't that what George wallace wanted to do, have it go to the House
>so
>he could deal for his electors?  I see your point in wanting our leader to be
>chosen by a majority of the people, but unless third parties play a major rolei
>   n
>future elections (as they did in all elections that the winner didn't get a
>majotity) I see no need for this. However, if it will help third parties
>flurish in this country, Im all for it.  But unless other parties start to get
>exposure and attention it will be pointless.

If you abolish the electoral college, it wouldn't go to the house, it would
be decided by the electorate in a run-off election
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, 12 Nov 1992 15:33:01 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: right v left

I once  again apologize for posting 1) late in the discussion and  2)
with anything that may repeat what has already been said somewhere.

I don't think that communism and fascism should be on this political
spectrum.  Or rather, I think that there should be two spectra.  One
which has to do with the amount of government interference in personal
lives in which  case I'd  draw it like this:

Lots of intrusion                               No intrusion

Totalitarianism:        Socialism               Laisser-faire liberalism
(Stalinism & Nazism)   Republicans    Democrats

The other spectrum  would have to do with the degree of conservatism
economically and would look like a circle  where Stalinism and Nazism
touched, but represented the Left and Right extremes, with the middle
being what we all know so well.

I put the Republicans closer on the intrusion side than the Democrats,
because the Republicans are the ones who want to tell the country that
certain acts done in private are illegal, etc(I don't feel the need to
give a detailed explanation of this argument, because we've heard it
before.).

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 13:48:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Query on feminists / language comments
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

    Mentioned with the reponse to queries on Camille Pagilia (who was
part of Newsweek's Cultural Elite 100 and spoke about by Naomi Wolf I
believe in New Republic some months ago) was two other feminists --
Catherine MacKinnon and Dorkin (sp).  I have heard of these people in
connection to pornography and such, and know the latter was influenced
by the abuse she got from men, but don't have a complete picture of
them.  A quick paragraph or so on each of the two would be greatly
appreciated.  Updates on MacKinnon's involvement in that group Jamie
spoke of would be appreciated too.

         -Joe

P.S. More on language: my dictionary assigns the term "nonstandard" to
such words as "irregardless" and "ain't", which is a good practice.
The problem of defining certain value ladened or controversial words
such as "art" is inherent in dictionaries that are after all not
essays on these words.  Furthermore, we have cultural norms on how
these words should be defined (feminine men are seen as abnormal so
gender being different than sex is controversial; now we have a group
member who shows the terms men and women aren't so clearcut either).
It's rather interesting though I don't care that much about it to be
_that_ deeply philosophical about it.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU