HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jswarts@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan Swarts)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: VP debate and such...
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:59:30 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <POLITICS%92101419423575@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> Travis Kidd <TK
IDD@CLEMSON.BITNET> writes:
>
>Just a quick note:  Unless the job involves crossing state lines, any
>                    federally-mandated family leave act for anything
>                    other than federal employees is unconstitional.
>

I'm not sure this is quite true. I don't have my constitutional law books here 
with me right now, but if I remember correctly, the Supreme Court has upheld 
such federally-mandated policies so long as the businesses concerned are 
engaged in commerce across state lines. This was based on the provisions of the
Interstate Commerce Act. An example of such an application of the ICC was in 
the 1960s when the Court upheld federal anti-racial discrimination on this 
grounds. If the company could be shown to have done business across state lines
- even restaurants serving out-of-staters - it was subject to the mandate.

Again, I may be a little off-track, but I think I'm generally right. Are there 
any constitutional law scholars that would like to comment on this?

Jon
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, 7 Oct 1992 08:23:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: archive files - i'll only post this once, so take good notes

Gary:

Thanks a lot for your info.  I assure you that it is apprciated -- I owe you
one sometime.

Apparently, I'm limited to 750k of downloading per day, so I'm not sure when
I'll be able to post Jamie's statements.  I'll try to get them posted by next
week, at least.

Thanks again,
Jason
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: the kErry tickEt
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:48:41 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

One of my esteemed opponents wrote:

>Kerry remarks, as if this would somehow encourage people
>to vote for her:
>
>>The beer thing:
>>How many of
>>our opponents have driven 750 miles (one way) in order to purchase products
>>unavailable in their states?
>
>  I can't speak for the other tickets, but the JohnsoN/OlsoN ticket
>has never *had* to drive 750 miles for a beer.  If Kerry can't keep
>beer available in her own state, how can we risk putting her in
>charge of the whole list?

I'm sure Tim simply misunderstood the intent of my comments (I'm confident
he would not deliberately misrepresent our position :)).  No one is more
likely to value and promote beer than someone who daily faces the
consequences of restrictive beer policies.  No one will be more vigilant in
protecting the rights of brewers, buyers, and drinkers of beer!

Vote KErry :)
From: YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Virtual Campaign
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:32:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

How do we vote? When do we vote? What will the duties of the elected officers
be? The Ministers of Comedy for the list?

Lance
From: andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: ==> Dan Quayle: Bush Attack Puppy Unleashed
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:43:04 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

> Quayle resorted to old Republican tactics -- he lied.

Let's see how the Clinton "truth squad" fares and what that tells us
about the Clinton campaign and positions.

> RHETORIC: "We have never subsidized any country--or any company to
> move from the United States to Latin America... We do not have any
> program that encourages companies to close down here and to go and
> invest on foreign soil.  That is absolutely outrageous."

The US does subsidize economic development in other countries.  Is
Clinton promising to change that?  If he isn't....

> Bush and Reagan, U.S. AID and other agencies have provided
> low-interest loans, subsidized worker training, construction of
> office or manufacturing space, and an elimination or reduction of
> tariffs for firms that locate in "export processing zones."

That's what subsidizing economic development in other countries
consists of.  Does Clinton oppose that?  If he doesn't....

The result has been that US EXPORTS to those countries has increased
greatly and that our balance of payments with them has IMPROVED.
We're buying more from them and we're selling still more.

The result of these programs has been more jobs in the US and more
jobs in those countries.  Does Clinton object to the former, the
latter, or both?

I do like seeing a Democrat scream that programs which result in more
US jobs are bad if they subsidize economic development in a foreign
country.  Is Clinton going to go after foreign aid programs that do
other things too?

I'm not going to bother with the rest of the supposed rebuttals.

-andy
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:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 08:37:18 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: clinton jams; bush rambles; perot advertises

Gary et al:
>Bush and Perot had good showings as well, but tended to ramble, and at times
>seemed caught off guard by the questions.  Their inexperience with the format
>hindered them as well, much as Clinton's familiarity with the format helped
>him.  They tended to look all around the room while answering, while Clinton
>looked directly at the person asking the question, and sounded very in
>command of the issues, without sounding canned.

I agree with your assessment.  Clinton's command of the issues -- compared
to Perot's slow dance and Bush's more general answers -- said to me that
he's the candidate who has thought about the issues in the most depth and
who has been most directly involved in crafting his policies.  I guess my
teacherhood (?) leads me to favor folks who do their own homework :)

I was surprised at this morning's polls, at least a little bit.  I was
still mostly asleep, but it looked like Bush made the biggest gain.  I had
expected him to pick up a few points, but I also expected Clinton to pick
up *more* points and Perot to lose more.  Do y'all suppose that at least a
large-ish set of undecided voters aren't so much "neutral" as looking for a
reason to support Bush?

Kerry
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:48:09 EDT
From: ^[corrigible <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: On the death penalty once again ...

Is it true that your's is the only nation in the world besides Iran that
executes children and the mentally retarded?
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, 9 Oct 1992 21:05:00 EDT
From:         welcome to the faith dome explosion <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Libertarian Platform
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>OK, now I have my reputation as a political junkie at stake. Does
>ANYONE out there have a copy on hand? Don't tell me about FTP because
>I can't do it from here and I wouldn't have the time if I could.
>Please help me.

Hurm.  As I recall, there was a ftp'able copy on archive.orst.edu, but i've
not been able to search the site - they've revoked anonymous login for
some reason.  I'll keep looking, though.

Gary W. Olson, who was in
 8th grade in '82...         "The federal government is basically one enormous,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU  ongoing Meeting From Hell." - Dave Barry
24 days and counting down...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:30:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: _Wings of Eagles_

        Ha, I was in 8th grade in 1962 (3?  I don't have anything left to
have carbon-dated).

                                        Chris Morrison
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:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:22:08 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      hmph

*i* commented on your post, richard ray starnes.  i corrected your remembrance
of that alexander the great business that you use in your header file.
breadth.  i'll say it again.
breadth.
you folks (starnes and stith) out at e.k.u.?  hey-cool.  you ever eat out at
that dairy queen by the place that sells mobile homes that's got a rotating
trailer up on top of it?  i love that place.  or the cracker barrel restaurant
out by the interstate that's got that real bad parking lot where if you
want to make a left turn, you can't see a thing?
richmond, god love it.  i miss kentucky so darn much, i mean this.
in the south, gun control is not a matter of manners, really:  it's de rigueur
policy.

clinton is losing his voice.  do i sense.....(threatening music)....
S   A   B   O   T   A   G   E   ?   ?   ?

(of course, if he was in the vanillanova area, i would suspect saboe-tage :-)

just a little deep-fried food for thought from
anneliese.
From: YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: James Stockdale
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:10:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"

Does anyone have any info on James Stockdale. I know he is a retired admiral of
some sort. I know he doesn;t have much experience with the issues. Fill this
large gap please
Lance
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:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:35:01 -0500
From:         MARTIN FOX <FOXML@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: New kid on the block...

Please please please don't start discussing abortion on this.  I'm
getting too many messages already, and this is a topic that noone can
agree upon.
  I would comment on the issue, but as I've just said we shouldn't,
I'm not going to.  The Gay rights disscussion (The one I came in on)
was bad enough, and almost turned me off to Politics before I really got
started.

-Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:16:17 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: gun control, kinda'
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.IUPUI.EDU>

On Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:07:45 CDT Teddy Jack Eddy said:

>>The fact that someone uses a firearm in a crime doesn't mean they are
>>threating death on that person -- many use it to keep control of the

>It doesn't ?!?  Pray tell us, just what is the threat?  Perhaps an
>impromptu dancing lesson?

>Fear of what?  Maybe DYING?

Probably fear that they have no control over the situation because the
idiot holding the gun doesn't think he has a better option to accomplish
something.  Fear of dying doesn't stop many people from intervening
in situations to save someone else.  Fear of being in control of a
situation is another story.  When Joe Ripoff (or Joe Rape, or Joe Mugger or...)
is holding the gun, you have very little say in what happens, other than
forcing the issue and making him/her decide whether they should kill you
or not.

If some are going to claim we have no right to take the life of another
in the name of justice/punishment/etc. then we get back to the rights
& responsibilities of society.  Why is it someone capable of working
has a "right" to expect me to fund their laziness but I don't have a
right collectively to expect certain behaviours -- not in return -- but
just because ?  Doesn't this start nearing the question I posed
some time ago re: responsibilities?  You may have a right not to be
killed at the hands of the state, but don't you have a responsibility
not to impede on the rights of another?  Which weighs more?

And for those who claim the death penalty is revenge and not justice, then
(aside from just looking it up in a dictionary and spouting words)
just what is justice?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:34:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: post-debate reaction: yes, my spirit is snoring!

I think the defining moment of the debate came when Bush mentioned Clinton's
organizing of anti-war demonstrations while he was in England.  Bush explicitly
declared that he was not questioning Clinton's partiotism, only his judgement.
However, Clinton then accused Bush of questioning his patriotism.

I have to say that Clinton did a pretty good job in defending his trip to
Moscow.  However, Bush never mentioned that trip during the entire debate.
Rather, Bush questioned Clinton's anti-war demonstrations, and Clinton said not
a single word on that subject.  He blatently (and handily) switched the
subject.  Of course, the media helped him out on this; Larry King was on after
the debate talking about Bush's fictitious attack on Clinton's trip to Russia.

The fact that Clinton deliberately dodged this issue shows that he fully
deserves the nickname "Slick Willie."  And if the voters don't notice that he
pulled a fast one tonight, then they don't deserve any better.

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 08:25:19 CST
From:         "RIG 59-INTERNET GATEWAY" <GE0793@SIUCVMB.BITNET>
Subject:      New kid on the block...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This note is being forwarded from the RIG 59 BBS -- 618-942-5715. Any
direct or public responses will be forwarded to the original author.
< INTERNET: GE0793@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU              BITNET: GE0793@SIUCVMB >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Shadow #185

all,

  Some pretty hot discussions on this message area. I, being a Rush
Limbaugh fan and a Christian, know that my point of views are right. How
can you even compare the death penalty of someone that has commited a
heinous crime to the unnecessary and unwarranted pain that is involved
in the abortion of a baby?

And who told you that most of the abortions are done on 8 week old
fetuses? What a crock. Abortion in the state of IL are legal to 24
weeks. Do you know what a 24 week old baby looks like?  I am having my
fourth child, and believe me, I have had enough ultra-sounds to know
that a 24 week old baby looks just like a baby.  Gee, I wonder why?
But just because the law says that it is only legal to 24 weeks, does
not mean that law is obeyed. I have read opposing articles and books on
this issue, and my mind remains unchanged.

Does anyone of the pro-death mind have the same open mindedness to look
at the other side of the issue? No, I think not.  But just in case,
there is a rather enlightening book on this issue, "GRAND ILLUSIONS the
legacy of Planned Parenthood"  by George Grant.

   Gee, I feel much better.

                        Jennifer Moyers

< INTERNET: GE0793@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU              BITNET: GE0793@SIUCVMB >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: FOXML@RHODES.BITNET (MARTIN FOX)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Aztecs
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:57:34 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

Carl: >I saw a PBS series on the Aztecs.  Their accomplishments were fascinating
however they are marred by the gruesome acts of human sacrafice.  How could
they be so barbaric?

How about asking how the Spainards could have been so barbaric?  It amounts
to about the same thing.

-Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:05:21 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Ross's Home Video
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.IUPUI.EDU>

On Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:47:13 -0400 Rick George said:
>In between Lindros's shifts, I watched Perot's 30 minute bit on CBS
>last night.  First observation is that he obviously didn't spend a

In the interest of staying awake, I could only handle about three minutes
of him.  I switched (appropriately) to HBO's "Other People's Money".

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:00:07 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Jews and other things

>> "....the Jews...they were killed by the millions  50 years ago now...If they
>had fought back with GUNS they might have not been slaughtered....."
>
>        Gee, sounds like a little bit of blaming thhe victim to me.

Not at all.  It's just pointing out that soft targets are preferred.
Available targets have the same disadvantage.  Attacker's preferences
aren't "fault", but they do exist and there are consequences.

>But even if EVERY person the Nazis were after had a gun,
>it wouldn't have made a difference.

Really?  It wouldn't be unreasonable to think that the Warsaw Ghetto,
which held out longer than the Polish Army, didn't make any real
difference, but to claim that dozens wouldn't have made a difference
is absurd.

>attempting to rob, rape, maim, etc. you is one thing, shooting a  bunch of
>soldiers who are rounding up your entire neighborhood in the middle of the
>night is something else.

It's EASIER.  Sure, they've got better uniforms than common thugs, but
you've got more tactical advantages.  (BTW - since 1945, people with
small arms have regularly won revolutions against govts with big war
toys.)

>        On another subject, but not neccessarily an entirely different one, I
>thing that a hate crimes bill is a good thing, whether or not it is federal
>or state.  However, state mandated Anti-hate crimes bills (like Oregon measure
>9) are extremely scary.  It has been argued that these hate crime bills may
>marginalize minorites even ffurther, but they at least offer protection,

No, it's been argued that hate crime bills are just like anti hate
crime bills.  They both target VIEWS; the difference is the views
targetted.  Censors always promise to go after "bad views"; they
always have good intentions.

BTW - It's bad form to attribute positions to other people; they don't
necessarily have positions that you'd like to argue against.

-andy
From: PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Discriminating Reader
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:53:06 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

I had about a hundred lines or so, but liese's words hit home.
I do trust anyone whose opinion I care about to decide for themselves
whom to believe.

I do not ask Jason to retract any falsehoods he averred, lies or
otherwise. I hereby retract any false insuations I insinuated
(a vacuous retraction, but why not).

I appreciate all past support from discriminating readers.

No more is necessary, thanks. That is to say, you're on your own.

Jamie
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, 12 Oct 1992 20:02:00 EST
From:         YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Are the rest of you getting double copies of messages?

No I haven't been getting double copie
s
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, 9 Oct 1992 10:49:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: gun control, kinda'
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt349557@drew.edu>, linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET> writes:
>>death penalty ok for rape?  The death penalty is meant for a deterrent
>>against murder, not assault.
>
> i don't agree. the death penalty is not meant to be a deterrent against murder
   .
> it is punishment for murder. those who espouse it to be a deterrent are either
> trying to fool themselves or others. allowing the state to execute people is
> much easier to swallow if it's touted as a deterrent for the good of society
> instead of punishment of the individual.
>
> - linda
>
>> -Joe
>
the "deterrent" part is arguable, and not really germane to my
argument.  I for one agree with you, but think deterrent is used as a
justification.  At any rate, deterrent/retribution whatever it is
meant to apply for murder, not assault, rape, being a homosexual etc.

  -Joe
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: clinton jams; bush rambles; perot advertises
Date: 16 Oct 92 11:40:40 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

From:         welcome to the faith dome explosion <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>

> As for the format, it was great.  The questions were focused on the issues,
> and tended to avoid narrow questions of character, and seemed to bring the
> best out in all three candidates.  This is the future of presidential
> debating.

I agree, but just one little complain.  There were not many
follow-up question (in fact I think there was only one or maybe
none.)

> Gary W. Olson
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:54:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: post-debate reaction

        I meant attention in the media.  It might work like a smoke screen
in the last parb4Lh9QT
z7Irt of the campaign.

                                        Chris MorU3 griso
From: andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: WWF (AKA the veep debate)
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:47:47 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>I've got a question: Why didn't Gore bring up IraqGate and Iran Contra when
>Quayle started jiving about an untrustworthy Clinton? Those two examples of
>the Bush administration/Bush represent corruption at its peak.

Try again.  Those are two examples where it is easy to believe that
there's some wrong-doing on Bush's part, where it would be really
convenient if he'd done something wrong, but reality doesn't seem to
work that way.

Competent investigators have spent some $50 million and four years
looking at this stuff.  There's no supporting evidence.

Of course, given the way the Demos have been campaigning, it is
somewhat surprising that Gore didn't follow this advice.

-andy
--
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:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:45:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: nag, nag, nag

        Maybe Honest Al was working his way up to a product endorsement for
throat spray.

                                        Chris Morrison
                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet