HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:16:45 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

I will probably be repeating some things said by other posters.

>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

>Jamie:
>
>You state that "revealed truth isn't available to the public at large."
>I cannot imagine where you could have gotten this idea (except perhaps
>in college).

>If, by "revealed truth" you are cutely referring to the Bible, I cannot
>think of anything more available to the public at large.  Moreover,
>the "public at large" tends to have a far greater respect for and
>understanding of this "revealed truth" than you may think.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about whether more people
believe in biblical dicta than believe in other dicta. I haven't
taken a poll, and I doubt that Kerry has.

Some truths are "available" in the sense that someone who doesn't
believe them can be shown why they are true. For example, someone
who does not believe in laws of gravitation can be provided with
evidence that those laws do obtain.
Other truths are not available in this sense. I wasn't "cutely"
referring to any book in particular, since I do not claim to know
whether what the bible says is true or not. But, suppose it is.
Suppose it is full of truths. Unfortunately, I don't have any
reason to believe those truths. So they are not available to me.

By calling them "revealed truths," I was calling attention to
the way in which people come to believe them. Some people claim
that the reason they believe that the New Testament is true is
that it came to them in a flash, or that god spoke to them, or
that it just suddenly became apparent that it is true. But these
ways of coming to believe things are not publicly available ways.

Of course, as Richard has pointed out (with dismay), the problem
with revealed truth is that others may claim that different propositions
have been revealed to them as true. And in that case, rational
discussion is over, at least as long as each side keeps insisting
that their beliefs are self-evident, or obvious, or authoritative.

>The only way to miss revealed truth is to close your eyes and hope it
>goes away.  It won't.

That's not correct. There are probably quite a few revealed truths
that I do not believe. In that sense, I am "missing" them. I am
not closing my eyes and hoping they will go away. I am waiting to
see whether there are any good reasons to believe them. And so
far I haven't been provided with any.

Jamie
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Legal Standing/Homosexual
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:06:50 GMT

In article <POLITICS%92091111430446@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU> SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET (Sue Clark) writes:
>Hello Jimbo:
>
>Given a scenario, if such a case of homosexual partnership and legal standing
>were to arrive before the Supreme Court, (and I am not sure if such a one
>has), as the Court now stands:
>
>Would the Supreme Court, with its current appointees, pass such a law allowing
>homosexual partnership equal legal standing as a heterosexual marriage?

Thanks for the question.  I have no idea at all.  Ask Jamie or
someone like that.  I don't watch the court at all.

I'm more interested in thinking about what the court _ought_ to do.

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 08:24:52 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bad v. Harmful
              8 Sep 1992 11:28:39 GMT from <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

From:         jimmy donal wales <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

>> Without getting theoretical -- not that I can -- it seems to me that
>> one can easily define harmful without the knowledge of whether it
>> is bad but the reverse is not always easily done.

> ?

> Just for the record, I equate the two.  Harmful, bad.  Bad, harmful.
> Additional questions that must be answered, though: of harm to whom?
> bad for whom?

> I don't see how something harmless could be bad.  And I don't see
> how anything bad could be harmless.

> What's the difference?

Maybe I wasn't clear the first time, so I am gonna give it one
more try.

Let's examine if the following action is bad or harmful.

              Dropping X in somebody else's Y.

I am saying there is no way to find out whether something is
bad without knowing if is harmful.  But it is quite easy to
determine if something is harmful without knowing whether it
is bad?

It is kinda like energy and temperature for gases.  One indicates
the other, but we cannot measure temperature directly.  First we
measure the energy, then we relate it to it's temperature.

That's it.  Maybe I should have emphasized on the recognition
of bad and harmful rather than on their independent existence.

> --Jimbo

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:18:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

Don't worry about the theology.  It's coherent, I may not agree with it,
but it does make me think, and question my own ideas.  And it is related
to politics.  So keep it coming.  At least that's my opinion.

                            Chris Morrison
                            CMorriso@snyescva
PS  That's the idea of these things, isn't it, thought and discussion?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:52:50 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

>Congress is sending the president a family leave bill that would require
>companies with more than 50 employees to allow up to 12 weeks of unpaid
>leave for people with sick family members. The family values president
>is expected to veto the bill because he says it will eliminate jobs.
>I have trouble following that line of reasoning. Can someone enlighten
>me?

Why is it so difficult to understand why such a mandate will increase
costs, and that leads to less employment?  (Some employers may provide
such a benefit, and I'd place some value on that when chosing an
employer, but that doesn't mean that it's free or that implementing it
doesn't have an effect.)

Sure, there are jobs where workers can be plugged in and out without
any effect on costs.  (Most probably fall under the category
"unskilled labor", although I doubt that all "unskilled labor" jobs
qualify.)  In those cases, such a system doesn't increase costs, but
it's reasonable to assume that most of the places that don't have such
a system don't work that way.

Are we really assuming that employers won't provide benefits that cost
nothing?  Why?

-ndy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 10:02:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bad v. Harmful

>KAT:   Jimbo, yesterday I said "X" to my secretary.  Was that bad?
>Jimbo: I don't know, KAT, was she hurt?

>KAT:   Jimbo, yesterday I said "X" to my secretary.  Was that harmful?
>Jimbo: I don't know, KAT, what you said, was it bad?

>Now, it seems to me that the first set of Q/A is more
>reasonable/logical than the second one.

>What do you say?  As I said before, *I* am not sure any more.

>--KAT

i know this is btwn. kat and jimbo....but i can't resist.

KAT, reminds me of old joke....patient says to doctor"it hurts when i do this".
doctor says to patient "then don't do that".

*smile*

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:38:00 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bush Speaks

>From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
>
>On Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:48:54 MST Roger said:
>>For all intensive purposes, he's trying his best in this doggy-dog world.
>
>You wouldn't by chance mean "dog eat dog" would you? :{)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Think he means either "doggy doo world" or "doggy-style world"
either way.....

jcs
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:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:38:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: let's rephrase the question

>  problem is overpopulation.
>
>Let me see if I understand this.  Are you claiming that some
>people are gays and lesbians as a response to the environment?
>Kind of for like the reason why our pinky is small is that we
>don't use them a lot?

>I never heard *that* before.


     Actually, I was suggesting that overpopulation is a reason
  for not encouraging marriage, if as some have suggested, the reason
  for encouraging marriage is continuation of the line.  Surprisingly
  enough for this list, I wasn't thinking about homosexuality at the
  time.

>--KAT

         --G. Racz
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Annoying Request
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 01:38:31 GMT

I am trying to locate an old e-mail friend.  He used to be
on this list, but he lost his network access.  But then, I
heard that he got it back.

Does anyone know how to reach Dan Evens, the physicist from
Toronto?

--Jimbo

p.s. Remember, I'm already in jail for the logic coup thing.  I
guess this post nixes any chance I have for time off for good
behavior.
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:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:46:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: NEA funding

>  I hope you people can sleep at night knowing that by saving yourself
>64 cents you have crippled the economy.
>[end JSS mode]
>  Surprisingly, I must agree with Jay.
>     todddddddddd


    Wow. Thought I'd never agree with Jay. (BTW I see he lives on in
  spirit if not in virtuality.)

G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Ethics in public discourse (was RE: Is homosexuality immoral?)
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:30:03 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <POLITICS%92091100210404@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,         
Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:
> Let us be fair.  Robert does not assert that Christianity is the *only*
> moral code.  He contends that it is the only moral code that is
> legitimate in the eyes of God.

Robert makes reference to things as "moral" or not in relation to his version
of Christian morality.  Implicit in this is his belief that Christianity is the
only "real" moral code, and that others moral codes are not.

> since we are discussing public morality, which may or may not
> be religiously based, and which may or may not point in that direction.
>
> In this country, public morality has largely been shaped with reference
> to the tenets of the Judeo-Christian ethic.  Thus, it is a fair subject
> for discussion with reference to this issue, and the debate is meaningfully
> advanced by discussion of the content of that ethic.  However, other moral
> codes, particularly those to which American law and tradition make no
> positive reference, merely serve to confuse the issue.

And here is where you are wrong.  If the Christian ethic (there is no such 
thing as the Judeo-Christian ethic, Judiasm is a different moral, ethical, and
religious system of which Christianity began as a heresy) is the only valid
ethical referent for public morality, then Christianity becomes the de facto
established religion of the nation, in violation of the First Amendment.

Those of us who do not subscribe to the Christian ethic have as much right to
use our moral systems as referents to form policy in our nation as Christians
have to use theirs.  The art of American politics is the arrival at a
compromise acceptable to all parties in the dispute.  If we can not reach such
a compromise, then the Great Experiment has failed, and we may as well disolve
the Union.  Goddess help us if we do.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
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:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:24:57 -0400
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: An easy answer to a little question

>Could you tell us when and where your goddess said what you quote?

Missy, could you give us a clue as to when and where your god guy
was when he "proclaimed" that this Jesus guy was his offspring.

Perhaps you could also locate a primary source from a witness to this
event that was not a christian... ooops that's right the christians
destroyed all of the primary sources they could find that disagreed
with their beliefs... oh well, looking forward to some real proof...


Thanks,

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:42:33 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Hate the Sin not the Sinner

Luke 15/1-32 or 15/1-10:

.....Pharisees and scribes murmured, "This man welcomes
sinners and eats with them." .....

Now why is it that Jesus Christ would eat with sinners but
some of his today's followers want to deny insurance rights to
homosexuals?  Do they think their allowing homosexuals
have insurance benefits for homosexual spouses is more of a
condoning of their life-style than Jesus Christ's sitting
and eat with them?

Now don't give me your "an eye for an eye" for my "turn
the other chick."  Even so, it shows how different Christians
may have different moralities.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:37:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Homosexuality: Isn't this where I left?

From:         Sappho was an right-on woman!! <CAROLYNR@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Homosexuality: Isn't this where I left?

        hey carolyn, good to see you back!

>From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
>once again, we see an argument saying that gays shouldn't adopt.
>what about those homosexual persons who HAVE kids.  it's probably
>not as rare as you think, jason, especially since a lot of gays
>go a long while trying desperately to deny that they are gay.

Actually, I plan on having a kid soon. Well, my partner is the one who
will be carrying the load. I look forward to the blessed event knowing that
my sexual orientation will not have a negative impact on my parenting skills.

        that is very cool.  good luck to both of you.

        never claimed that it did.  jason was advocating not
        allowing people to adopt due to sexual orientation.  i was
        just asking him if he extended his ban to biological children
        as well.

        donna and maggie (a couple that my lover was living with over
        the summer) are thinking of having a kid.   one concern they
        have (and this is for the benefit of those people who like to
        deny others rights) is that if the sperm donor knows who they are,
        he could at any time sue for custody, with a chance of winning
        because they are lesbian.  it is truly sick that this should
        even be a concern, even if it never happened.

>a fair number of people i know are children of gays.  my last
>girl-friend was raised by her mother and her mother's lover.
>should she have been taken away from her mother because of her

The folks I know with gay parents have fared as well if not better in some
instances than those raised by heterosexual parents. Again, sexual orientation
does not impact on parenting skills.

        i know one woman who was sexually abused by her mother.  i know
        lots and lots and lots of women who have been sexually abused by
        their fathers.  there is a lot of repressed stuff in heterosexual
        relationships as they exist today that come out in really ugly
        ways.  to my experience, they are not nearly so prevelent in
        homosexual relationships.

        most of the trauma that children of homosexual parents undergo
        seems to be from the outside, from the society that punishes the
        child of people whom it disapproves of.

--CAROLYN M. ROBINSON

        CAROLYNR@BROWNVM
        CAROLYNR@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU

        brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:28:42 CDT
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2
From:         "Sue Ann Clark --UNMCVM(SACLARK)" <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      mail delivery error

*** Resending note of 09/04/92 15:25
Received: from OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU by unmcvm.unmc.edu (Mailer R2.08)
 with BSMTP id 4396; Fri, 04 Sep 92 15:25:50 CDT
Received: from OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU by OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (Mailer
 R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 8302; Fri, 04 Sep 92 16:23:53 EDT
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 16:23:52 EDT
From: Network Mailer <MAILER@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
To: SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET

Batch SMTP transaction log follows:

220-OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU Columbia MAILER R2.08 R208004 BSMTP service
ready
220 .
050 HELO unmcvm.unmc.edu
250 OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU Hello unmcvm.unmc.edu
050 TICK 4394
250 4394 ... that's the ticket.
050 MAIL FROM:<SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
250 <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>... sender OK.
050 RCPT TO:<poltics@ohstvma>
250 <poltics@ohstvma>... recipient OK.
050 DATA
354 Start mail input.  End with <crlf>.<crlf>
554-Mail not delivered to some or all recipients:
554 No such local user: POLTICS
050 QUIT
221 OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU Columbia MAILER BSMTP service done.

Original message follows:

Received: from unmcvm.unmc.edu by OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (Mailer R2.08
 R208004) with BSMTP id 8300; Fri, 04 Sep 92 16:23:52 EDT
Received: by UNMCVM (Mailer R2.08) id 4394; Fri, 04 Sep 92 15:25:13 CDT
Date:         Fri, 04 Sep 92 15:11:15 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM>
Subject:      Hell Week
To:           To All and All <poltics@ohstvma>

Finally, at long last, hello:

This has been a hellish week here at the Univ Nebraska Med Center.  Every
conceivable student in the Great Plains was here in unforgiving droves
and hordes. It was almost virtual non-stop and I am now just getting caught
up with my mail and reading all of your postings for this week and will
be back on Tuesday.  I am whipping out my 'Buzz Off' signs and 'Caution:
Radiation Leak in Vicinity' signs and placing them on my desk, and hoping
to God it works!  Maybe now things will calm down, I hope, I hope, I hope.

Everybody have a great Labor Day weekend!

Hating the first two weeks of school with every ounce of my being,

Sue Clark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:31:03 EDT
From:         Mike Fessler <MIKEF@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

>On Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:13:00 EST JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET said:
>>> Really????  I am going to have to check this out.  But the constitut ion
>>> also says that no state shall be deprived of its equal representatio n
>>> in the Senate.  (Art 5, I think, the same one that deals with amendm ents
>>> to the Constitution)
>
>> Article V pertains to amendments.
>But does it ONLY pertain to amandments?

An interesting Constitutional question, but I think so. Here's Article V
of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case,
shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that
no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate.

Distilled down, it says:

The Congress shall propose amendments to the Constitution in such-and-such
a way; provided that (condition a); and that no state, without its consent,
shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

At least to me, it seems as if the "provided that" makes the clause about
states' suffrage in the Senate contingent upon the amendment process. In
other words, it seems to me that this is a restriction on what sorts of
amendments may be passed, not a blanket prohibition, at least according to
the strict sense of the language, to which you may or may not be loyal.

Anyone know what the case law is behind this clause? Am I a budding young
Constitutional scholar, or have Justices of much superior rectitude and
insight run circles around my argument?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:27:00 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject: Re: getting blood from a turnip: an answer to kerry s.
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Sat, 12 Sep 1992 12:58:46 -0500 <ANTHLAL@UMNACVX> said:
>hi-ho, kerryrino, here's the scoop on how the home of the fightin'
>golden gophers handles library fines:
>you pay them, or you can't do anything, like have a computer account
>(which, incidentally, you get to pay for yourself), or enroll, or
>graduate, or any of that good stuff.  you can withdraw books (so that
>you a) look busy when your advisor comes by your desk and b) have
>something to dust, organize, and reorganize instead of actually working
>on your dissertation) for 13 weeks at a time.  of course, by the time you
>have had books for 13 weeks, you start to forget when exactly you got them,

[...Paul Harvey's "The Rest of the Story" deleted...]


Guess you never tried to sneak them back onto the library shelves and
suggest someone must have forgotten to "check them in" ???        :)

Just a thought after having seen _Sneakers_ this afternoon...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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