HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:15:32 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: pot and the kettle

From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET

>> And THIS, Robert, my friend, is the word of God and cannot be
>> disputed.

> Well, friend, just where was the Word of "G"od in that post?  I didn't
> see any of it.  What I did see was a lot of Catholic policy.  A policy,
> I might add, that conflicts with scripture.

Well, I am not surprised at all that you did not see the
word of God there.  You see, the word of God is not apparent
to non- or ill-believers.  You gotta have faith.  Sorry!

> The Bible authorizes divorce, but ONLY, in cases of immorality (adultery).
> Annulment?  Can you give me a scripture reference for this?

Can YOU give me a scripture reference for your adultery exception?

>---Robert

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:02:06 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Polling Pitfalls

>From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>The stated margin of error is a LOWER bound on the margin of error; it
>isn't an upper bound.  It is based on assumptions that competent
>pollsters know to be incorrect.

It is neither a lower nor an upper bound.

The figures given in a poll MIGHT be EXACTLY right, thus zero error.
They could, conceivably, be off by virtually any amount, if the
pollsters got REALLY unlucky.

The margin of error is something like the distance from the figures
cited that they'd have to be wrong by for the bias in the poll
(whether systematic or random) to be "extremely surprising," where
that vague term has some more precise definition, like "only a
tenth of a percent chance of such a freakish result," but I don't
know exactly what it is.


Jamie
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Thou shalt not ( ? )
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 17:15:10 GMT

I really regret picking Missy Justice out for my earlier barrage of
commentary.  Despite initial appearances, she appears to have (at least
implicitly) taken a relatively reasonable stance on tolerance for others
and legal rights.

If I remember correctly, Missy doesn't think that Christians need to
take actions to bring about the Second Coming.  Robert, apparently,
thinks that it is some kind of moral duty to bring about Armageddon.

> How can the Second Coming be fulfilled without Armagaeddon?
>
> ---Robert

Be afraid.  Be very afraid.

--Jimbo


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:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:43:06 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      i gotta find a new hobby

...'cause people from my past are catching up with me via the nets.  aaiiee!
kidding, mc haffie, relax.
i am writing to tell you of ultra-secret new developments in the perot
campaign...my mother is acquainted with this woman who is dating someone
calling himself "david roosevelt", claiming to be "one of *those* roosevelts."
the reason i find this to be suspicious is because this particular
david roosevelt is working for the perot campaign in new york.  now, karen
(my mom) told me that david was going to new york to make sure perot would
a) be on the ballot
b) receive lots of votes and
c) not be made fun of by dana carvey (true fact!)
and she told me all of this last thursday.  mom, knowing that i work for an
ostensible media source, wanted to know if i'd heard anything about perot
getting back into the race.  i told her no.  guess i'd better start paying
more attention to my mom, whose biggest contribution to my world is usually
stuff along the lines of "i certainly can't say as i much cotton to the way
that boy you like treats you" and "honey, alla folks at church are askin'
'bout you, and sister wilson said she's gonna pray for you, ain't that
sweet o' her?".  karen lorson, media pipeline.  all this time the perot
campaign has been looking for leaks, and they are embodied in the form of
one woman in louisville, kentucky.  who woulda thought?
anybody out there want to hazard a guess as to how the planets got aligned
so as to allow for the mystical conjunction of the distinguished political
house of roosevelt got aligned with the world of perot?  (note well,
scorekeeper:  my guess is a one-word answer, and it begins with an m and
ends with a y and there's a one in the middle.)

                              * * *anneliese "jupiter ascending" l.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 09:27:21 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform
              4 Sep 1992 08:10:39 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

KAT:

You are, of course, free to interpret it any way you like, but Constitutional
scholars will have you for breakfast.

--Missy P 2 B
From: bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Bill in Buffalo
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:52:07 GMT
Organization: UB

IGJF400@INDYCMS.BITNET (STEVE FULTZ) writes:

>The Clintion bus tour is often late because of extra stops, this is not
>an uncommon problem when campaigning this way.  In the C-SPAN coverage
>of the bus tour it was mention that the Clintion campaign tried to
>build in extra time but were still delayed by unplanned stops.

	The unplanned stops that were mentioned by the local press included 
a 45 minute stop for ice cream (brand not known), and two `unplanned' stops;
One in Fredonia and one in Mayville. I put that certain word in quotes
cuz each unplanned stop had about 150 people waiting for Bill. Whatta
coincidence. "You unplanned?" "yeah me too!" "I just happen to be here
waiting for Bill just-in-case he drives by." 

	Gimme a break!

>I think that the bus trips an excellent way to campaign this year.  It
>allows for a lot more of the smaller press to cover the campaign.

	How does traveling the country in a bus help the smaller press
cover the campaign as opposed to staying in one spot?

=========================
bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:34:57 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
              28 Aug 1992 14:17:33 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET

>> I understood that part.  Now tell me why would you allow "MURDER"
>> in cases of rape, incest, and life of the woman?

> I think you *know* why.  If I/anybody came into this discussion demanding
> a total ban on abortion, the reception would be even more hateful than the
> one I am now getting.  I am not naive enough to hope for a ban on abortion.
> However, I do believe it can be substantially limited by allowing only the
> exceptions I mentioned.  You (and others) can twist my comments and their
> intent until we're blue but it won't help you to justify the current ongoing
> wholesale slaughter/murder of our children.

Robert might be many things, but he also seems to be an honest
kind of a guy.

So you are telling us that you are against any and all abortions but
since a total ban is not feasible, then you are taking a relatively
moderate stance so that a limited ban might become a possibility, right?
*********
You might not be "naive" enough to think that a total ban on abortion
is possible but you are still pretty naive if you think you can stop
abortion by outlawing it with the exceptions of rape, incest, and life
of the woman.

> Put your mind to work on something constructive instead of spending all
> your efforts trying to misrepresent the intent of those striving to
> save lives.

That I engage an intolerant (yet compassionate :-) person like you in
endless and fruitless discussion so that you cannot go out and be
the intolerant person that you are, I think is doing something
constructive.   What do you think?  :-)

> ---Robert

--KAT

p.s. (to Dave):  Republican platform does NOT allow for rape and incest.
                 I *think* even life of the woman is not mentioned --
                 but I can be wrong on that last one.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 10:58:15 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Gore on the Environment

Pam Leader:

Since you believe that the environment is the most important issue,
I assume that you have studied it in some depth, and, if so, I
assume you know what you are talking about.

Could you please tell us where you get your information about the
environment?

Thanks,

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 11:29:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: i am so dismayed

>Please could we eschew such obfuscation.
                 ^^^^^^
every time i see that word, i think of mastication.
post-consumer nutrients?

>Dunstan

-linda   (i've lost my appetite)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.2 (R4).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:05:09 GMT+4
From:         Mary Ellen Foster <MARYELEN@HFX001.NS.ISTC.CA>
Subject:      Re: Say What??!?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> MaryElen (or somebody else who can answer this):
>
> Is the Quebec separatist movement still alive and well or has it
> died out?  Why?  (Either way.)
>
> Just wondering.  Thanks.
>
> --Missy P 2 B
>
Yes, the movement is still alive and well (as the CBC never tires of
telling us!). There is currently a huge series of discussions,
meetings etc going on about the constitution - Quebec wants to be a
"distinct society" and some others don't want to let it do so.

Really, I think most Canadians are fairly fed up with this constant
navel-gazing. It doesn't really make all that much difference to me
whether we get an "Elected, Equal, Effective" senate or not! I just
tune out whenever there is anthing about that on the news, and I
don't think I am alone!








Mary Ellen Foster
MARYELEN @ hfx001.ns.istc.ca
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN::"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
X-VMS-Cc: JNET%"val-l@ucf1vm"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 09:12:19 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      will I vote?

Hi, y'all.  In response to Val's post, here are a few rambles and musings
of my own :)

I will be voting this year, and for Clinton/Gore.  Perhaps because I've
taken more interest in this election than in the others I've voted in, I
see this contest as offering me a better choice between candidates than
I've felt I've had in the past.  This is purely subjective, of course, but
for once I feel that I *won't* be picking the lesser of two evils.

Now, that's not to say that I think Clinton will magically fix everything I
think is wrong, or that I agree with all of his proposals, or even that I
believe he'll be able to implement everything he wants to.  Rather, I see
two potential outcomes of a Clinton presidency that are important to me.
The first is appointments to the Supreme Court -- I think Clinton is more
likely than Bush to appoint justices who will safeguard the individual
liberties that matter to me.

The second is a more useful and productive discussion of environmental
issues than we currently have.  I'm not suggesting that Clinton/Gore have
the answers.  But at least they seem to be starting from the premise that
environmental protection, broadly construed, is not inherently incompatible
with economic growth and job security.  I see this as infinitely preferable
to the false dichotomies erected by the current administration (owls vs.
jobs, biodiversity vs. competitiveness, etc.).

Time for class -- enjoy, and don't toast me too much!

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:58:07 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Religious freedom
              25 Aug 1992 14:06:55 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

Robert:

Do you suppose Jimbo means something, er,.....unsavory.....
when he promises to "come down on you"?

I know what *I've* meant by it, but that was long ago and far
away.....

Hmmm.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:45:13 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      What conference is this, anyway???

linda....

I love it when you write like that.  My keyboard is soaked with the sweat
of my quivering limbs.
                                                 _ __
                                                ' )  )
                                                 /--' _   _   _  __    :-{)
                                                /  \_(_)_(_)_(/_/ (_
                                                         _/
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:11:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: pot and the kettle
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:

-- Robert

 > Like it or not, homosexuality is perversion.  Homosexuals should never be
 > allowed custody of a child. (are we becoming friends yet?)
 >
 > ---Robert

Richard:

 >>        Before making comments, I would like to express this argument
 >>in logical form.  Please tell me if I am mistaken in expressing the
 >>form of your argument as follows:
 >>
 >>        1) Homosexuality is a perversion.
 >>        2) No person who has a perversion should be allowed custody of
 >>                a child.
 >>        3) Therefore, no homosexual should be allowed custody of a
 >>                child.

 ...stuff deleted

From Robert:
> Homosexuality (perversion) is wrong because it is contradictory to
> "G"od's word.

        Actually, this does not answer the two questions I asked in
order to better understand the original argument.  First, I would like
you to provide definitions of 'homosexuality' and 'perversion.'  That way
I can identify more precisely the group which shall be denied the right
to abopt children.  This group (according to other posts) also includes
athiests, but I am not certain whether 'athiesm' qualifies as a perver-
sion or if there is some independent grounds for disempowering athiests
from legal adoption.

        Second, even if I grant that homosexuality (perversion) is
wrong I do not see how a prohibition on homosexuals adopting children
should be prohibited.  It is wrong for a person not to return the $5
she borrowed from a friend, but this would hardly warrant a prohibition
on adoption.  Indeed, if 'having done something wrong' is a sufficient
reason to be forbidden to adopt, no person may adopt.

        1)      Anything which is contradictory to God's word is
                        wrong.
        2)      Homosexuality is contrary to God's word.
        3)      Perversion is contrary to God's word.
        4)      Therefore, homosexuality and perversion are wrong.
        5)      Whoever engages in a wrongful activity should be pro-
                        hibited from adopting children.
        6)      Therefore, homosexuals and perverts should be pro-
                        prohibited from adopting children.

        Finally, I would like to ask a question concerning the first
premise.  Is homosexuality wrong BECAUSE it is contrary to God's word,
or does God prohibit homosexuality BECAUSE it is wrong?

        So, a brief summary of what seems necessary to continue this
debate: 1) definitions of 'homosexuality' and 'perversion,' 2) a defense
of the premise 'whoever does something wrong should not be allowed to
adopt,' and 3) determination of whether the wrongness of homosexuality
is grounded on God's word, or whether God's command is grounded on the
wrongness of homosexuality.

                                Richard A. Fyfe
                                rf35@umail.umd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:13:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Human Life Amendment

>No, sorry.  You must have missed it.  I am "Missy P 2 B" because I
>am going to be President when my running mate (Kerry other President
>in Waiting) and I win the virtual election.

>--Missy P 2 B

nah huh, missy. what makes you so sure you're gonna win?
-linda  vote E
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 09:35:25 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: new topic: unrest in germany

> The european members of the group often comment on lack of global issues
> on this list and the concentration on US concerns. That is because, as
> all europeans know, americans are self-centered and egotistical.

> What is the story behind the recent outbreaks of violence in Germany?
> What is their government doing to control the rioting? How long has this
> been going on? Is it limited primarily to the under 30 crowd or are
> other age groups involved.

Ok, here is another one.  President Rafsanjani of Iran proposes
to do away with the veto power of the permanent members of the
UN Security Council.

Is that a good idea?

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:59:52 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Wrongness revisited

Having looked over some history of the dispute, I see that I ought
to retract my accusation that Richard misunderstood (I ought to have
known better).
Richard did explain wrongness in terms of desires and aversions that one
ought to have. But he explained what aversions and desires one ought to
have in terms of other desires and aversions.
In short, his definition does, after all, fall under the rubric of
"recursive" and not "circular."

The logic czar regrets the oversight.

Jamie

"A lot of people didn't like Pat Buchanan's (convention) speech.
Maybe it sounded better in the original German."

Molly Ivins
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:54:00 EDT
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: What is family values?

> Peter:
>
> I did not include "tolerance" because as we use it today (as synonymous
> with license for others), it is not a virtue.
>
> I used compassion, because I meant compassion.  Compassion says,
> "what you are doing is wrong and it would be best for you to stop,
> but I still love you."  Tolerance says, "Do whatever you like and
> I won't say a word and I will pretend that I love you."  (Because if
> you really love someone you want the best for them.)

Obviously we define tolerance quite differently.

That being the case, then the question "What are family values" really
does become relevant, because there is not general agreement as to what
they are.  And, when a Republican says to a Democrat "You lack family
values," what they are really saying is "You lack MY values."

Now, to claim that a person refuses to live by the rules of the society
is valid (assuming that you can back up such a claim).  But to complain
that others don't adopt YOUR values in their totality is just infantile.

No, not just infantile.  It is also deeply un-American.  Sadly, it is a
habit that the demagogues in our country resort to often.

By the way, we define compassion differently, too.  I think that
compassion includes the duty to help if help is wanted, needed and
possible.

Thanks for setting me straight about your views on tolerance.

Best,
Peter

> --Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:26:46 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: To Missy: On Wrongness

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> How do you know that you "ought" to have an aversion to something?

I am not gonna answer that question.  Richard can best handle
that.

However, this string of posts started when it was suggested that
rape is/is not a sexual crime.  Those who say it can ALSO be a
sexual crime (like me) do not say that it is not a hateful or
violent crime rather that it is possible that rape in some cases
is driven by sexual urges.

To demonstrate that, I would like to repeat something that Richard
said sometime ago.  Pedophiles also hurt their victims, but their
action is not driven by hate towards children, in fact quite the
reverse.

So why is it so difficult to accept that some men commit the crime of
rape based on their intense sexual urges and not based on their
hate for women?  In other words the primary motive for some rapists
may be the sexual enjoyment and not the power struggle or the violence
that it undeniably brings onto the woman.

> --Missy P 2 B

--KAT
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:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:29:58 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: The City on the Hill

Evelyn:
>Well, Kerry, to give Quayle the benefit of the doubt, he could have been
>talking about getting more Republican senators and representatives
>elected in 1994.

Maybe.  But the question was about his presidential aspirations . . .

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:33:05 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      i've finally figured out danny's problem

>think about the way danny talks....jimmy. jimmy carter. jimmy carter grain
>embargo.
>
>-linda

Linda, the exact quote is:

[I will never have] "another Jimmy Carter grain embargo, Jimmy,
Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Carter grain embargo, Jimmy Carter grain embargo."
        -- Vice President Dan Quayle during the Benson debate

                                                        ---roger
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU