HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:43:00 EDT
From:         the valley of the fuzz-tone guitar <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      the moral is there is no moral

Jimbo:
>I think that many homosexual people are immoral, for a couple of reasons.
>First, many homosexuals endanger their health by doing things which are
>unsafe (in particular, I am thinking of promiscuity).  Second, I think
>that many homosexuals (though not necessarily ALL) have psychological
>problems which are only made worse by their lifestyle.

So, then, doing unsafe things is immoral.  Psychological problems are
immoral (or maybe just making them worse is immoral)...hmmm...nope, I still
don't get it.

It certainly isn't hard to figure out how being homosexual in this
society could cause one some serious mental stress.  I have
to question the notion that if someone's psychological problems are
being made worse by the reactions to the way they choose to live, then
the way one lives must be immoral.

Consider: I, like you, am an atheist.  Suppose I get a lot of flak for
choosing to not believe in a deity, which aggrevates a tendency towards
depression.  Am I immoral, then, for living an atheistic lifestyle?

>But I think that we don't know anywhere NEAR enough about the causes
>and consequences of homosexuality to make any kind of blanket statement
>on the topic.

Case in point.

>--Jimbo

Gary W. Olson, whose agenda "That's tonight's 'Unsolved Mysteries.' Next
  is hidden in the cupboard, week we'll present wildly inconclusive evidence
  behind some 'Pop Tarts'    on the Amelia Earhart disappearance, U.F.O.'s
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU and God. Be there!"-Evan Dorkin's "Milk & Cheese"
54 days and counting down...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:10:08 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: A light snack
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              10 Sep 1992 15:03:24 EST from <92price@GW.WMICH.ED U>

On Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:03:24 EST <92price@GW.WMICH.EDU> said:
>Oh yeah, and just so you can think the worst of me, I think the age of consent
>should be puberty.

how do you propose to determine this, particularly in males?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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:         Sun, 6 Sep 1992 17:09:51 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rights, and other comments ...

Y'all have been complaining about the tone of the campaign commercials,
but I saw a commercial from 1960 on CSPAN that showed a bunch of
cartoon people marching around to this song:
    "Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy....."
    (ad naseum.  and stir.)

Give me substance--even *bad* substance over this kind of nonsense
*any* day.

--Missy P 2 B
From: CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET (VALENTINE M. SMITH)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: It's always the money
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:13:53 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Read _Cadillac Desert by Marc Reisner - one of the besr=t looks at past,
current and future water policy around. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:49:32 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Checkoff Hoax

>Imagine that the scheme goes into effect. And suppose quite a lot of
>people check the box, so that a large sum goes into deficit relief that
>would not otherwise have gone there. What is the effect? The effect is
>that there is a budget shortfall, because now the fed lacks the money it
>had already budgeted for all of its programs.

Jamie should have listened to the whole paragraph.

There's no "hoax" because the checkoff was to be accompanied by
across-the-board spending cuts EQUAL to the checkoff.  The checkoff
effectively moves money from programs to paying the debt.

Of course, there's nothing stopping govt from further spending
increases but that's a problem no matter what we do.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: 199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET (Tyrone Slothrop)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: rest rooms
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:35:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"

joe:

the *only* reason that keeping single sex rest rooms is a good idea
is that given the current sociological and psychological construction
of the human person, it would be *dangerous* for women to share
public rest rooms with men.

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:25:04 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Test of the Covenant

Val,
You are certainly being put to the test.
Grit your teeth. Bite that bullet. Recite silently the Vow of Silence.
Do it for the team.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:51:37 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:08:04 EDT Jamie said:
>>Gender segregated bathrooms do not occur because of (what you think of as)
>>bigotry?  Why not?
>
>Well, I THOUGHT we segregated bathrooms for reasons of privacy, or
>modesty, or something like that. I'm not really sure what you're
>driving at.
>Maybe it's something like this. Homosexuals do not have the same
>reason to want bathrooms segregated by sex as heterosexuals do. So,
>it is conceivable that homosexuals could claim that segregating
>public bathrooms discriminates against them. I must say, I don't
>see exactly how the claim would be made out, but I'm happy to
>listen to whatever argument you want to give.
>
>People feel uncomfortable being in a public bathroom with members of
>the opposite sex. They don't feel uncomfortable because they think
>members of the opposite sex are wicked, or disgusting (probably quite
>the opposite). They feel uncomfortable because of the way we associate
>our nether regions with sexuality. People feel more comfortable when
>restrooms are segregated by sex.
 ...
>If you don't agree with this, Missy, I wish you would say why YOU
>think restrooms are segregated. For my part, I feel a little silly
>continuing this discussion, not least because I think equal protection
>is very important and shouldn't be trivialized.

I remember seeing this (in print, no less) by those attempting to justify
why homosexuals shouldn't be in the military...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 09:49:07 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      getting blood from a turnip

To Missy P 2 B & * * *liese:

Why don't the two of you just return the items on time, so other's waiting
may use them?  This isn't an issue of money, it's all about selfishness.

                                                    ---roger
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:03:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

I don't know about precious metals, but diamonds are in trouble.   Did you
guys hear about the black market diamond mining and De Beers?

Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 21:22:20 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
>
>Jamie:
>
>I think you would be hard put to convince the Court that defining
>marriage as a union of two individuals of the opposite sex is
>discriminatory.
>
>I think they would consider your argument, well, "facetious."
>
>--Missy P 2 B

Perhaps they would, but calling my argument names does not
constitute a refutation.

That definition of "marriage," together with actual marriage law,
are OBVIOUSLY discriminatory. It discriminates against pairs of
citizens of the same sex who wish to establish a legal union
that will be recognized in the same way heterosexual marriage
is recognized.

Maybe there is a good reason to discriminate in that way, but
we haven't seen one proposed yet.

Equality before the law may seem facetious to some, but not to me,
and not, I hope, to the Supreme Court, since it is their sworn
duty to uphold it.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 11:06:39 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Library Fines

>. . . I was quite amused to receive, at the end of my first semester here,
>a letter from the library explaining that, because I had overdue books,
>they were going to hold my grades and transcripts.
>
>I was actually amazed to find, once I became involved with a librarian,
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(...STUFF DELETED...)

>Kerry

It appears you tried yet another way to get out of paying the fines.
Did it work?????  ;-)
                                            ---roger
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 10:22:25 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Pennies from Heaven

 *** Resending note of 09/08/92 17:25

 >To Robert:  (from Roger)
 >In all seriousness, if we DID give 1/4 of a cent to put the Bible in the
 >classroom, who's doctrine would we follow?
 >
 >    Would we allow discussion of the Virgin Mary?
 >    Would the Mormon view of taking more than 1 bride be taught?
 >    Would we allow healings?
 >    Could we have a tele-conference with Jim Bakker?
 >
 >Please help.  I just don't understand!

 It's odd that you would be concerned about *whose* doctrine we would follow.
 Do/did you have those same concerns about the alleged pieces of art?  Why are
 you placing a restriction on the Bible usage that does not apply to the
 trash labeled as art?  Isn't it funny how liberals twist the rules when they
 start to lose?

 Someone, jokingly, suggested we could steal bibles from hotels and let the
 Giddeons (sp) foot the bill.  In reality, the Giddeons would be more than happy
 to donate bibles to the schools.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:04:28 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Interest Rates
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:48:00 EDT <CMORRISO@SNYESCVA> said:
>The thing about the interest rates being low is that they're really high
>in Germany and this is what caused the dollar to drop against the mark, and
>in fact the dollar has been doing quite badly, although I have not read
>enough to comment intelligently.  But as long as it does not directly
>threaten his reelection, Bush will not do anything to keep the dollar
>from falling.  People in Europe (at least those that are on the shortwave)
>are wondering how the fall of the dollar can be the object of such little
>interest in America.

but while the rates *seem* high in Germany, 9% is a gold rush here...
at least it was during the latter part of the 70s...it's all perspective.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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, 4 Sep 1992 17:09:53 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      RE: Youthful punks
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              4 Sep 1992 17:13:19 GMT from <gpn0@NS1.CC.LEHIGH.E DU>

On Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:13:19 GMT GARY PHILIP NEWHART said:
>Guess you haven't been to germany lately; Inflation is running at greater than
>2%

Sorry, I went back and reread the article.  Currently @ 5% and that's only
because of accepting E. Germany into the fold.  Until then, it'd been a
solid 2% for along time.  Also, interest rates are @ 9.8% there, one of
their highest rates in history.  The article in yesterday's Trib said
also the strength of the d mark is threatening the EMS efforts...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Original_cc:  HOUSSAH5
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 10:25:00 +0200
From:         HOUSSAH5@EGAUCACS.BITNET
Subject:      RE:RE: to Missy (and intersted) about BOSNIA

Well, Missy that is precisely the point. When the US decided to intervene in
Irak, the main reason given for the intervention was claimed to be
because what Saddam Hussein was doing was not right. It is of course
clear that the true reason was oil and national interests in the region,
however I am talking about th
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:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:56:54 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

Hi, y'all:
fred said:
>>I still don't understand how the education voucher will upgrade our
>>ability to compete on a global scale. Can someone enlighten me?

and MacPhil replied:
>Perhaps the education voucher provides the ability for poorer families
>to attend private schools?

According to the latest stats, students in private schools do no better
than students in public schools when family background is taken into
account.  And, although my income probably makes me middle-class, a $1K
voucher *still* won't help me send my kid to private school.

So, although that's the reason some give, I don't buy it :)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:22:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Pennies from Heaven

I like that.  No doubt that the National Endowment for Bibles would go
through a process as scholarly as the National Endowment for the Arts,
and their awards would be equally uncontroversial.  Then I would really
find out what sort of strange Bibles there are out there.

I would love to hear Jesse Helms complaining about taxpayer funding of
ungodly translations and commentaries on the Bible.

                                      Chris Morrison
                                      CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:26:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: NEA

A huge grant for the Clemson College radio station, and a multi-billion
dollar research foundation in Highlands, NC, which he put me in charge of.
He bought my vote.  The rest of you should be receiving private messages
any time now.

                                Chris Morrison
                                CMorriso@SNYESCVA.bitnet
PS  I wonder if Clinton loses, will there be a draft Clinton movement in '96?
How about Quayle if Bush loses?  How do you think they will react?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:40:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      War between the Jasons

>Um, do you remember the line about assumptions?  I can't speak for Jamie or
>anyone else, but as far as I'm concerned, condemning homosexuality on
>religious grounds and condemning homosexuality because "gays are different"
>*are* the same -- in that neither reason can legitimately be used as the
>basis of discriminatory laws.

Do you believe that religious reasons are ilegitimate because you equate them
with bigotry, or because you want to keep religion/morality out of government?
I'm not sure which you believe.

>We've discussed this issue back 'n' forth many times, and I haven't yet
>seen a convincing (non-religious) justification for not legalizing
>homosexual marriage.  Or, to put it another way, laws that provide benefits
>to legal unions of men and women seem, to me, to discriminate against
>unions between partners of the same gender with no justification other than
>prejudice.

To be honest, I can't think of a single good reason to oppose restrictions on
gay marriages that doesn't ultimately have its roots in religion either.  I
would argue that the state ought to promote basic family-values (not to use an
overused cliche, or anything) morality, which is why the tax code helps out
married couples in the first place.  Therefore, lifestyles which don't pass
moral muster ought not to be encouraged.  Of course, this argument still
assumes the religious opposition to homosexuality, so it fails your standards
of legitimacy.  On the other hand, would you continue to give benefits to
married couples with children, since it draws distinctions based on moral
decisions?  Or do you have another argument that justifies one but not the
other?

>Kerry

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:44:20 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Interest Rates

Sometime ago Bush made a comment about the fact that credit
cards charge exorbitant interest rates.  (Never mind that his
remark was considered reckless by the financial community
and caused a jumpe in the interest rates.)

What I like to know is how come the Federal Reserve Board's
discount rate is at an all time low of 3%, but the IRS keeps
charging high interest rates (in the vicinity of 9-12%?)

So Bush wants to charge the Banks 3% but the little guys
10%.  Another example of the Republicans/Bush being the
friend of the rich and powerful.     :-)

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:06:29 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: New York Senate Race

>Rick:
>
>Thanks for a really wonderful and well-written message.
>
>                               Chris Morrison
>                               CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet


Chris...

I wasn't sure that it had enough Biblical references for the Politics
list, but am glad to see that it passed muster.

Thanks for reading it.  And if you're in New York State, the debate
starts at 7:00 p.m.  To paraphrase Bob Costas, check your local TV listings
for the station in your area.  (It's WABC-TV in the NYC-metro area).

Cheers!

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:02:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Greetings and some thoughts on queers

 >Well, I have a lot more I could say, but since I'm sitting here with what
>could turn out to be the chicken pox, my ideas are rapidly losing coherence.
>I'm going to go try not to scratch now...

buy some Alvino (i think that's the way to spell it). its made of oatmeal
and is a nice yucky brown. put a bunch in your bath and soak. it helps
relieve the itch. you can get it anywhere (drug store, acme, etc)

-linda

>ps. As you can see, I'm also from ithaca.  They must put something in the water
!

i wouldn't be surprised.

-linda
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re:      Is homosexuality immoral?
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:19:49 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <01GOL4CZILNK00098H@WABASH.BITNET>,         
ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET writes:
>>From: "Patrick W. Hamlett" <PWHMDS@NCSUVM.BITNET>
> 
>>This is true *only* if a reasonable case that homosexuality is immoral can
>>be made, a feat *no one* on this list has yet achieved...
>>Hamlett
> 
> I think I missed something.  Do the pro-gay people out there not believe that
> the Bible is a "reasonable" guide to morality?  

I believe that parts of the Bible are reasonable guides to morality, and that
parts are not.

> Or are you expecting us to 
> make attempt to show that homosexuality is immoral without reference to 
> Christianity or any other religion?
> 
> If so, this discussion is already over.  My moral code is certainly no worse
> than yours just because mine is based in religion.  In fact, mine is 
> infinitely better, since it is based upon eternal truths as opposed to mere 
> human whims.

Ah, but my moral code *is* based in religion, just not *your* religion.  For
that matter, look into the philosophical field of ethical realism to see your
claim to a superior moral code is false.

> By excluding Christianity as a "reasonable" moral code, you've constructed a
> playing field that allows only you to win.  Quit hiding behind your atheism 
> and grant that not everyone shares your peculiar view of morality.  

a) I'm not Athiest, I'm Wiccan.
b) I'll cease excluding Christianity as a "reasonable" moral code when it's
proponents cease excluding everything else.

> If you  want to seriously debate this topic, you have to grant enough to 
> arive at SOME common ground.

However, as the discussion with Robert has progressed, he has begun from the
proposition that Christianity is the only moral code, which is patently false.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:14:31 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Term Limits

>
>     ---Andrew
>
>P.S. I worked on the McHale race this summer, so I could go on and on to
>     anyone who is interested, but I wanted to keep this short.

Ok. you are now going to be called "another andy" (or andrew) since
we already have plenty of andys.

all in favor of this name?

the only jcs
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU