HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: samuell@cis.uab.edu ('s)
Subject: Re: blue spruce
Summary: Colorado blue spruce
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:47:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.130719.1893@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> ja@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>In article <MAPPLER.92Nov16200907@titan.ucc.umass.edu>, mappler@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Matthew A Appler) writes:
>> A friend of mine wants to know if it is possible to have a blue spruce
>> bonsai....  Has anyone everydone this or know if this is possible?
>> 
>Yes, it can be done.  Not an easy tree though.  From my landscaping and bonsai
>(one spruce for 2 years) is that they don't take pruning and pinching well. 
>They can also be finicky about soil moisture and pH.  I could only get mine
>healthy for short periods; it finally died when I left it under a friends care
>for 3 months :-(
>
>The blue and native New England green spruces are the toughest.  Don't even
>think about a Norweigian spruce, those things die when you just think about
>pruning.  Someone will probably post their great success with spruces and all
>my experience was just a bad case of black thumb.
>
>bye............ John            ja@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu

I have maintained a Colorado blue spruce for nine years now--  in the 
South!  So it can be grown in climates where you might think it stays too 
warm at night in the summertime.

Repotting once after 5 years, I have kept it in a large flat tray which 
solves the moisture problem.  And I agree it does not pinch or prune well.  

I take off about a half to two-thirds of a "candle."  But then I must pull 
a few needles later around the pinched ends to make it look right.  Even
with this kind of pruning, I will probably not be able to maintain it
as a bonsai for many more years.

It is trained as a formal upright (big surprise, right!) and (horror of
horrors) I have actually put on very tiny Christmas tree lights during 
past holiday seasons for an interesting effect.  :-)


Bobb Samuell
Newsgroups: alt.bonsai
From: johnson@swings.enet.dec.com (Dennis M. Johnson)
Subject: mugho Pines
Reply-To: johnson@swings.enet.dec.com (Dennis M. Johnson)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:16:46 GMT


Randy Fromm mentioned a mugho pine as a bonsai. I've started working on one 
recently. But I've got an unsightly bark clump where a multitude of branches
came together and I trimmed several of them out. Do you have a fix for that
unsightly clump? Otherwise, I like my little tree.

Dj
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:558 alt.politics.perot:5583 talk.politics.misc:60931
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Date: 19 Nov 1992 15:48:58 -0500
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Vienna, Va.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com
Keywords: Double paradox

	[tons of stuff about gun control deleted]

Does anybody else see the paradox here?

These are bretty broad-based generalizations about conserva-
tives and liberals, but in the general sense, they seem to
fit pretty well. Please don't flame about how you may or may
not fit either mold perfectly, I'm just talking in general
terms here.

It strikes me that most of the people who champion the cause
of gun control are the same people who are kind of liberal
on most issues, and seem to lean toward the liberal mindset.
Except for this issue, where they want the govt to step in,
and tell us all what's best.

On the other hand, it seems to me that most anti gun control
folks tend to be conservative on other issues, such as abort-
ion. They want government control, except where the issue of
guns is concerned. These folks want us to decide for oursel-
ves about whether or not to have a gun, but not about other
pressing societal isssues.

I just thought it was kind of interesting...

-- Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions - not my employer's
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:568 alt.politics.perot:5585
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: What's up w/Clinton/usenet??
Followup-To: alt.president.clinton
Date: 19 Nov 1992 13:06:18 -0500
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Vienna, VA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

Hi...

A while back, I posted a message about inviting the Clinton
administration join us (or at least monitor the comments)
on usenet news, and perhaps open a heirarchy called us.gov.*
which would be used to announce status of bills, votes cast,
etc..

I heard via private email from a person that was associated
with the Clinton campaign that they were collecting comments,
to be forwarded to the PE at some later point; and that a de-
cision as to whether or not they were going to stay involved
in usenet/to what degree would be made at some point in the
future.

I have since lost that person's email addx, and I was just
kind of wondering where this stood. If you are still out there,
can you please comment on this?

-- Mike

-------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions - not my employer's
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:453 alt.politics.perot:5521 talk.politics.misc:60318
From: yost@adobe.com (David Yost)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Date: 16 Nov 92 06:57:44 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Nov13.032850.28606@adobe.com> yost@adobe.com (David Yost) writes:
>It would be a sad state of affairs if many people believed that belonging
>to an organization whose primary purpose is "preserving the 2nd Amendment
>of the US Constitution -- the right of citizens to bear arms" is viewed as
>a form of political protest, especially non-violent protest, no matter how
>valid that right may be in the Constitution.  There are so many other
>issues and principles one could found an organization around.
>
> --dave yost

Ahem.  Now that I re-read what I wrote as quoted in followups, I see
that as written it does sound stupid.  Sorry about that.

What I meant to say was that that it would be a sad state of affairs
if joining the NRA were generally believed to be the protest vehicle
of first resort to register protest in general about anything and
everything in government (i.e. my reading of what the poster I was
responding to was advocating).

 --dave yost
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:538 alt.politics.perot:5576 talk.politics.misc:60852
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 19 Nov 92 02:22:13 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

mccarty@add.itg.ti.com (Rick McCarty) writes:
> wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:
> 
> I feel it's absurd to argue that everyone is safer if everyone can 
> pack a pistol.  The statistics as I understand them just don't bear 
> out the claim that with a gun in the house, one has a better chance 
> against a bad guy.

which statistics have you been reading? all the ones i've seen do.

> Turns out that more innocent people get hurt than helped by having 
> a gun around.

again, where did you get this particular statistic?

> Case in point.  A few years ago, Time magazine ran an article which
> showed pictures of 400 people killed in one week with a gun and 
> listed the cause.

ahh. Time magazine. now there's a reliable and unbiased source.

> The majority of them were not crooks.  The highest percentage of 
> the people we killed in accidental discharges, suicides, or 
> homcides committed by friends or family.  If it were really safer 
> to have a gun around, one would certainly expect the majority of 
> the 400 deaths to be homicides committed by "outlaws".

or you might ask Time to present the real facts.

> It was a haunting article - one which finally convinced me that 
> rampant gun ownership (esp. handguns) is pure insanity and places 
> the public at far greater risk of harm than controlled public 
> ownership - even if the bad guys are well armed.

you don't take much convincing, do you?

> Our constitution was drafted to above all else protect the people.  
> I cannot believe for a moment that the right to bear arms must be so
> broadly interpreted as to overshadow what I see as an innate right 
> of protection from undue risk of harm.  And I do believe there IS 
> greater risk of harm to the public without stricter gun control.

you are free to believe that or not, and i won't bother flaming you
for it. i'd merely like to suggest that you get the -real- story
before making a decision. every documented statistic or real life
example i've ever seen contradicts you.

jason

--
                       The Conspiracy continues: 
                  "Sliced grapes!" - Nine Inch Nails
           "Mozzarella! Fists in the air!" - Front Line Assembly
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,talk.poltics.guns
From: bruce@pages.com(Bruce Henderson)
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Organization: Banzai Research Institute
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:09:10 GMT

]In article <BxoGHM.46q@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> willson@mentor.cc.purdue.edu  
(Allen R. Willson) writes:
]>the sale of weapons such as the Russian-made AK-47 which comes with
]>accessories like a 70 round clip may be limited.  This type of weapon
]>is not meant for hunting, unless you're hunting elephants or bears, 
]>both of which are endangered species.

Exactly. 
As someone who has trained professionally with the M16A1 / A2 weapon, I can say  
that they are really designed for one thing.  Killing people.  The only reason  
I have one is specifically that.  To kill people if it is ever required.  There  
is a good side to having an armed population.  Just because things are comfy  
now doesn't mean they will always be that way.  I have never ever wanted to  
shoot people. And I have even less desire to shoot animals.   But say something  
like the LA riots happened in your neighborhood.  Or even better yet, in your  
elderly parents neighborhood, and you really needed to defend agains the  
houligans in the street.  I'd much rather have something that I am comfortable  
with, and that I have had hours of saftey classes on.  I was dissapointed in  
California's ban on assault weapons.  I know for sure that the criminal element  
that wants these items has no problem obtaining them, but now I do.  Once agian  
the only reason I would want one is because I know almost nothing about other  
firearms, but I have spent years with the USMC training with this peice, and it  
is probably the one weapon that I would be safest using.

The main problem with guns and gun control is not the millions of responisble,  
regestered owners and memebers of the NRA, it is the ciminals and the insane  
who manage to purchase weapons.

I hope the Uncle Bill puts some effort behind a nation-wide law enforcement  
network of computers.  So that any gun store owner can check a person out at  
time of sale.

Bruce
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
From: casspa@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Paul Cass)
Subject: Re: Massive Clinton-bashing
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 17:33:18 GMT

In article <Bxu524.170@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> muwjt@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (William J. Taney) writes:
>>
>I think there may just be really sad sample of republicans in this group,
>however the mudslinging can stop , BUSH lost, I think they are still in
>denial stage.... Hopefully this will end soon and they will come up with
>something productive to discuss....
>
Maybe the republicans will eventually slow down their doom and gloom
rhetoric not yet.  In a local middle of the road newspaper there has
been nothing but weeping and wailing in the Letters to the Editor section.
If these letters are to be believed then the Democrates and Bill Clinton
are personally responsible for every disaster since the War of 1812.

In the words of that new TV demi-god...come on folks....lighten up. The
thumb screws, iron maidens and racks haven't been used.  Hell...they're
not even out of storage.
Paul


-- 
                          * * * * * * *
"It is possible to join forces, to identify common goals, and to agree on
 common action." - U.N. World Commission on Development and Environment
		       casspa@jacobs.cs.orst.edu
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:583 alt.politics.elections:24177 alt.politics.clinton:17522
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
Date: 20 Nov 1992 13:34:21 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Nov19.222246.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <BxzoDM.6Lv@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov19.082257.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>> 
>>>     4.  The Clinton supporters are going to have to learn how to 
>>>defend Clinton without mentioning Bush.  Based on their campaign 
>>>tactics, I suppose that this may take some time....
>> 
>> Well, gee, Bush had to bash Carter to defend himself, and Carter's 
>> been out of office for 12 years!  So I guess that means we can use Bush 
>> as an excuse to vote Democratic until 2004!  :-)
>> 
>     Bush compared a Clinton presidency (with a Democratic Congress)
>to a Carter presidency (with a Democratic Congress), *during the 
>campaign*; outside of the campaign, Bush did not regularly bash Carter 
>during his presidency.  Similarly, Clinton and his supporters bashed 
>Reagan during the campaign.  However, the campaign is over now -- and 
>Clinton still hasn't fully removed himself from the campaign mode.  
>Listen to his press conferences -- he still tacitly bashes Bush; watch 

Ummm perhaps you could give a few specifics here...I've listened to his
press conferences and read newspaper articles etc. about them and they
were clearly *very* supportive of President Bush. He has begun to outline
some specifics of *what* he *plans* to do once in the White House, but perhaps
you consider the difference in "style" as tacitly bashing Bush...interesting
to note that *many* Bush aides have been and are continuing to be *overtly*
hostile to the Clinton transition team...

>as he shakes the hands of the "masses" in D.C. -- an area in which 
>probably 90% voted for him.

I guess you dislike the idea of a president that actually (*gasp*) wants
to keep in touch with the people of this country (which, BTW, D.C. is
a part). I guess you'd prefer it if he stayed isolated in the White House
and *only* listened to his advisors concerning *how* the nation was doing...

John


Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:22:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <treilly.722145138@vincent2.iastate.edu>, treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly) writes:
> In <dnebing-181192212426@m64-147.bgsu.edu> dnebing@andy.bgsu.edu (dnebing) writes:
>>  This is just the beginning.  Prepare to watch the other campaign
>>promises be pushed aside.  Clinton is being proven to be the kind of
>>man that (excuse me for mentioning the name in this sacred liberal
>>democrat newsgroup) the Bush people said he was.  His is turning out
>>to be the type to promise everything but give nothing.
>
>      And which campaign promise did Bush keep?
> 
>     - No net wetland loss:  He tried to more broadly re-define wetlands
>     - 15 million jobs in four years:  he's 14 million short
>     - Kindler gentler Nation:  ask the dying Iraqi children what this
>       means; their water filtration plants bombed by the U.S. illegally
>     - Get tough on crime:  huh? 
>     - No new taxes..... well......

     1.  Bush deserved to lose the election because of breaking the
"no new taxes" pledge.
     2.  At least Bush waited until *after* he was inaugurated before
he started breaking his 1988 campaign promises.  :-)
     3.  Wouldn't it be interesting to see an updated "if the election 
were held today, for whom would you vote" poll?  Do you think Clinton
would win?
     4.  The Clinton supporters are going to have to learn how to 
defend Clinton without mentioning Bush.  Based on their campaign 
tactics, I suppose that this may take some time....

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: jmalloy@nyx.cs.du.edu (Joseph Malloy)
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 16:47:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.004007.49@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>> 
>> The Democratic Platform says:
>>     We will relieve the tax burden on middle class Americans by 
>>     forcing the rich to pay their fair share.
>
>"forcing", eh? why does this conjur up images of a highwayman with
>a mask and a pistol? ahh, but why should i worry, i'm a poor, underpaid

It 'reminds' you of that because you wish to think of it that way.  You readily overlook the many tax breaks the wealthy have enjoyed un the Regan/Bush duo
and are happy with the situation in which the rich get richer and the poor
get poorer.  In other words, you're a Republican, sorry to insult you! 


e

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:04:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.223100.5500@u.washington.edu> mvickers@orca.fhcrc.org (Mark Vickers) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>     [Over FOUR screens of quoted argument]

idiot>If you have strick gun control laws only people who break laws will
idiot> have guns.
idiot>-Mark.


	You are a fucking moron.  You quote a HUGE message, do not bother
	to trim it at all, and then post some bumper sticker comment 
	that you obviously haven't given any thought to.

	Learn to use an editor, or don't post.



-- 
 Robert Stephen Rodgers  ||  rsrodger@wam.umd.edu  || IRC: Yamanari
 --------NeXTmail-preferred!!--------------------------------------
 Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
 Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?  
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,soc.culture.usa
From: kumar@carleman.mit.edu (Sanjay Kumar)
Subject: Re: Health Care Costs [France ??]
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 00:42:36 GMT

ochealth@unixg.ubc.ca (ochealth) writes:
>Canada, France, Germany, Japan, England, Italy all manage it
         ^^^^^^
	 I lived and worked in France for sept.91-aug.92. Let me give some
numbers which will indicate the costs. For some one who makes $3000 p.m.,
he pays $600 for the social security and his employer pays $3000 for the
social security. Thus for some one with take home pay of $2400 p.m.,
the social security contributions is $3600 per month! [Note that income
taxes come on top of it]

It covers old age pension, unemployment and health care for that money.
For usual expenses the health care system requires one to pay 30% of the
cost [i.e. it has 30% deductible]. 

However, $3600  p.m. IS LOT OF MONEY. Even if I had to pay $600 p.m. as help
towards those earning less than money than me and $600 p.m. towards my own 
family's health care, $2400 p.m. is an excellent retirement plan and  I
never would have had to pray to the bereaucratic gods. What french govt
gives you in exchange is a complete RIP OFF.

My experience with the system made me vow to never work in France again.
To get reimbursement of $100, I had to spend full 8 working days and submit
my birth certificate, my wife's birth certificate, my marriage certificate,
its translation in french, copies of my salary documentation and  certificates
from my employer indicating extent of my contribution into the system. The
problem was that they asked for just one of the documnets at a time and
when I mailed the claim form with that then they will just return it asking 
for the next item [ended up going thru entire list given above]. The process
took 6 MONTHS! Tells a lot about waste and inefficiency there.

The problem with each govt run system is that people who work in it are
NOT MOTIVATED to make it efficient and that is what has completely screwed
up the social security system in France [it is supposed to go under very
soon]. That is why socialism collapsed. Profit motivates people and leads
to efficient utilization of resources. That is why a good health care system
will always be free-market based. Other options will simply be another 
parasite on public money.


-- 

Thanks

Sanjay
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:22:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <BxzoDM.6Lv@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
> In article <1992Nov19.082257.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> 
>>     4.  The Clinton supporters are going to have to learn how to 
>>defend Clinton without mentioning Bush.  Based on their campaign 
>>tactics, I suppose that this may take some time....
> 
> Well, gee, Bush had to bash Carter to defend himself, and Carter's 
> been out of office for 12 years!  So I guess that means we can use Bush 
> as an excuse to vote Democratic until 2004!  :-)
> 
     Bush compared a Clinton presidency (with a Democratic Congress)
to a Carter presidency (with a Democratic Congress), *during the 
campaign*; outside of the campaign, Bush did not regularly bash Carter 
during his presidency.  Similarly, Clinton and his supporters bashed 
Reagan during the campaign.  However, the campaign is over now -- and 
Clinton still hasn't fully removed himself from the campaign mode.  
Listen to his press conferences -- he still tacitly bashes Bush; watch 
as he shakes the hands of the "masses" in D.C. -- an area in which 
probably 90% voted for him.
     If they want to bash Bush in 1996, that's fine with me.  But,
until then, Clinton will be in the driver's seat of this nation, and
must take full responsibility for the course in which he leads us.

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: yost@adobe.com (David Yost)
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:33:10 GMT

In article <BxoGHM.46q@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> willson@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Allen R. Willson) writes:
>I would hardly call limiting (or deleting) the sale of high-powered
>automatic weapons gun control, or a repeal of the 2nd amendment.

OK, let's muddy the waters.

If the 2nd amendment is good because it allows The People to
be adequately prepared to fight against a government turned
totalitarian, then limiting the power of weapons people can own
would seem contrary to the intent of the 2nd amendment, no?

I wonder if they would have written 2nd amendment as it stands
were the state of weapons development 200 years ago as advanced
as it is today...

 --dave yost
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:456 alt.rush-limbaugh:9774