HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:54:16 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      andy has to be a republican

Andy,

Let me make it very simple for you. My complaint, in the first post,
and all subsequent posts, was people who complain loudly about abortion
and sexual assualt do nothing to attack the problem in their own back
yard. You saying that that I have changed the complaint does not make
it so. Careful readers will also note that in your first response to
my post you left out the topic sentence and quoted the rest of the
paragraph. Nice touch for taking things out of context.

Are you saying that there are very few incidents of sexual misconduct
by priests and ministers? I bet one of the list librarians could
provide figures to refute that claim.

Why don't you tell us what your agenda is? You never take a stand on
any issue, you just critique everyone else's stand. Gee, didn't we
just vote someone out of office for taking that same approach?

I challenge you to provide one original posting that shows your
stand on any issue you care to choose. It's easy to be brave when
you are taking shots at everyone else without providing anything
of substance outlining your political affiliations.

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: chiawei@Uz.nthu.edu.tw (Timothy)
Subject: Andre Marrou
Organization: Tsing Hua University (Taiwan)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:04:57 GMT


     i am an undergraduate student now in Taiwan. I am not familiar
with politics of the U.S. 
     Is there anybody who is kind enough to tell me something about
Libertarians and Andre Marrou ?
     Any opinion is appreciated.
     My e-mail address -->  chiawei@Uz.nthu.edu.tw

     Timothy Teng.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:02:54 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: RECENT DISCUSSION TOPICS RE "DRAFT DODGING" & MILITARY GAYS
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

What proof does anyone have that Quayle supported the war in Vietnam?
What proof does anyone have that Quayle supported the war in Vietnam?
As far as him surrounding himself with the top minds in the country, I thought
that's what you wanted.  That's what Clinton's done.  I belive Quayle held his
own in the debate with Gore and proved himself to be able to think on his feet.
He sounded more sincere than Gore's canned answers.  Did he know the questions
ahead of time?

-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 10:19:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Malcom X

>I saw the movie "Malcom X" this afternoon.  Without going into a "movie
>review" I will just say that I highly reccomend this film.  It provides

the philadelphia superintendant (sp?) of schools, Constance Clayton, has
recommended that all area students see this movie. i've never heard of a
city administrator recommending a movie, or requesting that time be set
aside to go to the movies....altho' she did specify not to cut class to do
so.

i really want to see it, but i will probably end up waiting for the video.
i never seem to get to see movies in theatres anymore.

-linda
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:07:51 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan dodged the draft!

In article <POLITICS%92111814585869@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>,
STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU says:
>
>There were many people against Vietnam that did not protest against it.  Also,

So what! What is wrong with exercising your democratic right to protest and
express your beliefs! As Quayle proves there are many draft age kids who
supported Vietnam but dodged the draft. You have a problem with protesting
but you have no problem with the hypocricy of dodging a draft you support?

How can anyone believe that your opinions are objective and are not
informed by your political sympathy for hypocritical dodgers like Reagan and
Quayle?  If Clinton supported the war and dodged the draft, you'd be after his
hide (assuming Quayle and Reagan had fought of course)

>Clinton's dodging was a "slick" whereas Quayle simply used family influence.
>-Rich

My gosh, you guys are really grasping are you. So you subjectively decide
that Clinton getting an educational deferment is "slick" while Quayle
using family connections is perfectly fine (what about Reagan)

By the way, what were Bush's draft age kids up to during the war?
From: STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: Reagan dodged the draft!
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:08:57 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I think the difference between Reagan and Clinton is that Reagan did not lead
protests against the war, which Clinton did in England.

-Rich
From: pasc1961@altair.selu.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Gays and lesbians in the military
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:31:00 -0600
Reply-To: pasc1961@altair.selu.edu
Keywords: Slick Willie, homos, military, stupid idea
Distribution: world
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University

In article <POLITICS%92111608340007@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> writes:
> This may very well become Clinton's first rude awakening.
> 
	You are right.  Slick Willie is in for many rude awakenings.  As far as
allowing gays in the military, I really hope he's not that stupid.  Speaking as
a United States Marine, I do not want to serve in peacetime, much less during
wartime, with homosexuals.  I don't think that any of my fellow Marines would
want to either.  Hell, I'd probably shoot the queer bastard if I were in a
combat situation with him/her/it.  I don't think Slick Willie realizes that
a gay can't kill the enemy by hitting them with his purse...


						Christopher K. Gilbert
						pasc1961@altair.selu.edu
						Bob Dole in 1996!

*******************************************************************************
  THE VIEWS EXPRESSED HERE ARE MY OWN AND ARE NOT ENDORSED BY THE UNITED STATES
MARINE CORPS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, OR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE...
( even though they probably should be...)
*******************************************************************************
 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 09:29:16 PST
From:         "Jonathan Fisher" <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Gays and lesbians in the military
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> From POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu Tue Nov 17 09:18:09 1992

> > I mean, OK, so what, there are some gay people in the military now.  They
> > no doubt LOOK at their fellow man/woman/soldier NOW.  What's the big deal?
> > Is anything going to change once the rules of the military change to allow
> > openly gay people in the military, NO.  The issue, KAT, is CONDUCT.  Do
> > these gay people do anything obscene?
>
> And yes, as someone else mentioned, something WILL be changed.  Now
> heterosexuals have to take showers with people who are for sure
> homosexuals no just with people who *might* be homosexuals.
Don't you think that that is a bit touchy?  Statistics consistently show
that at least 10 percent of the public is gay.  So therefore if you shower
with 9 other guys, 1 of them is, or you are, gay.  To say that you would feel
less comfortable if you knew which one it was, IMHO, is ridiculous.  But,
let's say that you feel uncomfortable.  Would that stop you from doing your
job?  Would that stop you from serving your country?  I think that if it
would then I don't want you serving my country anyway!
>
> > OK, how about this argument.  We have 14 NATO allies.  Of those 14, 12 allow
> > openly gay people in the military.  Their morale isn't breaking down.  In
> > fact you never hear anything about it, because IT'S NO BIG DEAL.
>
> I didn't say anything about morals.  I only brought up the privacy
> concerns.
I said morale.  That is the espirit de corps.  The joie de vivre. (I can't
do accents with this keyboard!).  Or to put it more simply.  The spirit
which they(the soldiers) do their job.  If the morale of the other military
outfits is OK after allowing openly gay people in their military, why is
it such a big deal here?
>
> > Get over it.
>
> OK, I am trying.
>
good!

> > Jonathan
>
> --KAT
>
Jonathan
From: R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET (Evelyn Duncan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: amazing!
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:42:12 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Pardon me for asking, but who is Duane Gish?  The only Gishes I know are
Lillian and Dorothy.

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:56:35 -0500
From:         LOOK OUT! She's got a life and she's not afraid to use it!
              <JULIEWS@IDS.NET>
Subject:      RE: Movie Review
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

See what happens?  We have a discussion here, and someone posts to the
Bush list to try to drum up support when they can't hold their own.

Sheeesh... what a bunch of wimps.

--Julie
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, 18 Nov 1992 21:32:16 -0500
From:         MARTIN FOX <FOXML@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Definition of Homophobia

> 2. The term HOMOPHOBIA has become as prevalent as liberals on this list.
>    I know absolutely no one that is afraid of gays.  Do any of you?  It is
>    not fear that causes those opposed to gay rights to be that way.  The
>    gay lifestyle is sick, perverted, wrong, disgusting and anything but
>    *gay*.  For the sake of fairness, must we begin tossing the term
>    HETEROPHOBIA into these discussions?
>
>
> ---Robert

Robert, here again you illustrate your ignorance.  Homophobia refers
less to a fear of homosexuality than to an irrational hatred of it.  Fear,
although it is a part of Homophobia, is not the entire meaning.  You,
incidently, show yourself to be quite a bigot in saying
 "..the gay life is sick, perverted, wrong etc etc." *Publicly*.  I, although
I feel homosexuality is personally abhorrent, do not and never will condemn
others because of their actions with others that are non-destructive - as the
gay lifestyle is.  Quite frankly, what others do in bed consentually is
none of your business and shouldn't factor into your judgement of them.
  Somehow, I feel like I've talked about this before on the list.  It seems
a shame that you can never learn, Robert.

-Martin
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:02:23 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou

In article <01GR8N9DZCPG8WX1DT@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>,
JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver) says:
>
>Oh dear... now you've got them started...
>
>:-)
>
>--Julie, who while not Libertarian herself thinks that any good libertarian
>         could probably whip the pants off of a main party candidate in a
>         debate.

Possibly, those who have no chance of being elected and having their policies
implemented always have an advantage over actual contenders who have to be
aware that they might actually be expected to deliver.
From: CORJB@RHODES.BITNET (Jason Briggs Cormier)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Flag Burning
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:58:36 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Dunstan:

The Nazis may have wanted to overtake the world, but the US only declared
war on Germany after Germany declared war on the US, which was after
the US delcared war on Japan.  More simply it went this way

Pearl Harbor
US declares war on Japan
Japan declares war on US
Germany declares war on US
US declares war on Germany

As I said before, Japan had no intention of overtaking the US; our
government simply wanted into the war.

I do acknowledge that our soldiers were fighting for those already
killed(-this is called revenge in my book and I don't approve-), but
they were not defending the country because there was no threat to
the nation itself.

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:49:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: just curious

sis,
i really honestly do not and really honestly never did care what any of them
did regarding the armed services.
-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:34:20 EST
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Flag Burning

>patriotism.  My point is, if we can't burn flags, there are always alternatives
>that will upset just as many people.  Face it, it's a freedom of speech that
>no law can stop because it wouldn't know WHERE to stop.
>
Exactly!  Or as my friend (and up-and-coming stand-up comedian) Brad
Hanson once said, "If fools can't burn it, wise men won't salute it."
   todddddddd
>Pieter
>PBICKFO1@ITHACA

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "Sacred cows can be mighty
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   tastey if they are properly
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    cooked!" -REV. B. C. WIRTZ
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:27:39 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Words
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I thought that this stuff had been covered, damm!
>
> Let's see what they have to do with fascism.
>
> >Here are some of Herscheson's beliefs:
> >1)      Increase military spending
>
> Actually, he said "no cuts".
Actually he said "INCREASE".  I heard him on at least one debate say that
and my local paper in publishing the views of the 2 candidates mentioned
that.
>
> >2)      Abolish Social Security
>
> Try again.  Herschensohn said that people in the system should be paid
> off, that promises made should be kept, but that SS should be
> discontinued for new people.  Herschensohn is right because SS is a
> bad mix of income transfer and retirement.  Private retirement funding
> works better and we should do income transfer up front and honestly.
Isn't that abolishing SS?
>
> >3)      Abolish just about every government office
>
> Not close.
Well, I have, err... had, quotes.
>
> >4)      Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion
>
> Wrong.
Covered this is a previous post.
>
> >5)      Off-shore oil drilling.
>
> If you think your view is worth a few hundred million, go for it.
This is an interesting topic let's make a comment.  I quoted Bruce's
statement earlier but I'll repeat it because it is funny and sad at
the same time.  I guess I mean that I'll paraphrase because again,
I had thrown away all of my Bruce stuff since he lost.  "I would like
to drive my car to the shore to see the oil wells".  I think that the
coast of California is one of the most beautiful places in the world.
Instead of drilling, I would like to see a real push for some sort of
energy conservation, which Bruce doesn't believe in.
>
> >6)      Guns into everyone's hands (if people in LA had easier access to
 guns,
> >        the riots wouldn't have happened)
>
> Wrong.  He said that people should be allowed to have guns.
The difference between our 2 statements is pretty subtle.
>
Look, I really don't want to get into a gun-anti-gun battle here.  If
you differ with my interpretation of what Bruce said, fine.  As I said,
I no longer have my stuff so I can't refute you.
> -andy
> --
> UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
> ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
>

Thanks for playing andy.  I appreciate it.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:41:16 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Shower Party

KAT has raised an interesting theoretical point.

However, I wonder how ingenuous the whole argument is.

It has never bothered me, even remotely, that it's quite possible that
the guy standing next to me in the showers at the basketball court is
gay.

I can't explain why this doesn't bother me, exactly, but it doesn't in
the slightest.

Do JasonZ and KAT worry about this sort of thing a lot?

Jamie

p.s. I'm eagerly awaiting Linda's and Julie's answers to the question
of whether they would like to shower next to 20-30 18 year old men.
Straight men, I assume, right JasonZ?
Come on, 'fess up, Linda and Julie.
      (just trying to stir up trouble,
             j)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:07:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Andre Marrou
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Oh dear... now you've got them started...

:-)

--Julie, who while not Libertarian herself thinks that any good libertarian
         could probably whip the pants off of a main party candidate in a
         debate.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:51:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gays in the military: last chance
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

jasonZ:

You, sir, are a dweeb.

The army is not a BUSINESS.  While sexual harrasment is a serious issue
you do not seem to be capable of getting it through your thick skull
that:

(a) _If_ there is a risk of sexual harrasment from gay men to other
    men in the armed services, it will exist whether or not there is
    an anti-gay ban in the military.

(b) It has not been demonstrated that such risk exists (fact: 70% of
    all men who rape men are _heterosexual_.  Source: Men Stopping Rape,
    Madison, WI).

(c) While generally speaking no one should _have_ to shower with someone
    else, the military is an entirely different situation from your social
    norm.  As has BEEN MENTIONED ALREADY, there are field situations in
    which women are topless in front of men and it is treated as part of
    the job and nothing more.  Furthermore, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED ALREADY,
    people who have to do quick costume changes in the theater experience
    similar situations.

(d) There is no direct evidence that many soldiers even CARE about this
    issue.  Most of what we are hearing is SPECULATION, not studied fact.

(e) My guess is that if you were ever  "forced" to shower with a gay man
    that you would have very little to fear.  Some people have taste.

(f) People ENTER the military with the knowledge that they would be in
    close proximity with one another and, whether they believe it or
    not, the information available that lesgay folk will be among the
    folk with whom they share such quarters.

(g) "Liking the way someone looks" is not sexual harrasment.  Commenting
     about someone's nice ass is, or telling them how "well hung" they
     are might be.  THAT is what should be regulated.

(h) You seem to have a really low opinion of our armed forces.  You
    suggest that they are completly incapable of handling themselves
    in a professional manner.  I think that they're capable of handling
     themselves better than that.

Got it?

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:45:57 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: gays in the military

>From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET

>The military is NOT a democracy, NOT subject to the *same* laws as private
>citizens or private/public businesses,

Hmmmm.  So in other words, its okay for the government to force private
entities to respect an employee's "right" to have a "nonthreatening" work
environment.  But government agencies themselves are under no particular
obligation to enforce that right for their own employees.

Now this truly *is* the first sign of fascism (in its strict sense; the term is
used so loosely people forget what it actually means).

>Know the subject, *then* spew! :)

Well, T., you've already spewn enough for the both of us. I notice that you
conceded that privacy is the "first to go" in the military.  Why did you bother
with the rest of the details you cited?  As long as personal privacy is gone,
all of my arguments apply (I think everyone else on the list realized that the
shower argument is just a specific example of a much broader issue -- I'll try
to keep you filled in next time, T.)

>-T.

JasonZ
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:11:44 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      test message
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

last one - promise folks. Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:23:52 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: CENSORED: FLUORIDATION RISKS
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

rich:
>FLUORIDATION RISKS RAISED BY NEW HEALTH REPORT
>
>Fluoridation has been a controversial issue since fluoride was added to
>public drinking water in the 1940s to prevent tooth decay.
>
>Now the Department of Health and Human Services has released an
>"executive summary" of a 13-year analysis of the benefits and risks of
>fluorides based on a study in which animals were given sodium fluoride
>in their drinking water.
[rest of post deleted]

But I thought the whole basis of fluoridation was the benefits that
had been found in areas where it occured naturally. To find the
effects of long term exposure to fluorine compounds one need only look
at people who live in such areas. Why obfuscate the issue by citing
animal test results ?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:13:37 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Clinton's Economists

>Please could anyone supply me with the list of the President-elects
>100 economic advisors along with their specialised area and the college
>that they are attached to.   It is of crucial importance for me to get
>the list as soon as possible.

Um, I have no economic advisors.  I was planning instead on
hiring a witch doctor, a fake eastern mystic, and shirley
maclaine....  oh, and the reagans' old astrologer.

                                      -Da Prez
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:30:19 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Wages and productivity

Another place to look for the missing money is in the salaries of CEO's.

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU