HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.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:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:39:25 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care

Hi, y'all:
Speaking of Arkansas' education ranking . . . if anyone's interested, I can
re-post some of the relevant stuff from Clinton's campaign literature.
From what I can remember, the following are of note:
1.  Hilary was in charge of a task force that, among other things, managed
to forge a state-wide consensus to raise taxes for education.
2.  Among the reforms undertaken were: teacher testing, an "admissions"
test that 8th graders have to pass before being admitted to high school,
early identification of kids with various learning disabilities, and lots
of attention to pre-school-aged kids.  The state also had (in 1990, I think
) the largest pay raise for teachers in the country.
3.  As far as higher education goes, Arkansas ranks 33rd in the nation in
total spending on higher ed (even though it's down at the bottom for
income) -- they spend well above the national average per student.  They
had the largest growth in spending on higher ed in the country. (I was
kinda depressed to see that Arkansas outspends West Virginia almost 2:1 in
total dollars and more like 4:1 on per-student spending)

Now, I know all this stuff can be interpreted more than one way.  But the
educators I know who are familiar with Arkansas allow as how they made some
real progress under Clinton.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:53:10 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Brett':
>
>Watch it.
>
>Offering evidence of pre-natal cognition is a theological argument
>and, therefore, unacceptable in this forum.
>
>--NINAR Kerry
>   (Just trying to obey the rules)

        This should fix it:

        While merely a fetus, I was channelling for Winston Churchill and
reacted with a kick to the news that Bobby and Jack were bros.

Brett'
(The medium is the message :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.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, 28 Jan 1993 08:32:07 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Supreme Court decision

Hi, -andy:

>Of course, I could have mentioned the "multiculturalism" protests.  No
>govt involved, yet lots of screaming "at fellow citizens".  But, since
>the screamers and impeders were "correct", that's okay, right?  Those
>nasty abortion screamers are a different story.

OK, I'll bite :)  Which "multiculturalism" protests?  And did Peter suggest
that "allowable" forms of protest vary depending upon what one is
protesting against?  If so, I missed it.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU,@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU:R3EJD@AKRONVM>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:36:28 EST
From:         Evelyn <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care
              27 Jan 1993 15:53:10 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

Brett':
  Churchill was still alive when your mother was carrying you.

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:06:55 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Subject:      Re: 12:01 PM

>>Clinton.  I only hope that the nation prospers under his leadership.
>
>Ever hear of the phrase "nowhere to go but up?"

Yes, but only twice was the speaker actually correct about the range
of possibilities.  Usually events demonstrated that the speaker was
clueless.

-andy does like the "issue of the day" policy wrt executive orders

--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:46:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hate speech ...

I didn't know there was any such thing as a legally recognized "hate
group."  What is the legal definition of "hate"?
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:14:39 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Reflections on the Iraqi situation ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> On Mon, 18 Jan 1993 16:22:34 PST Jonathan Fisher said:
>
> >> but I would suggest the expelling of 415 Palestinians into a no-man's land
> >> where now no one will deal with them is a war crime,
>
> >I do not fully agree with the expelling.  I do feel that Israel has received
> >a great deal of unfair critism of it.  To take the Israelis side for awhile,
> >the Palestinians are the Hamas.  They are a violent terrorist organization
 that
> "Unfair criticism," hah?  OK, let's hear some FAIR criticism
> of Israel regarding this action.
I'm ready.

>
> >have killed Israelis for the reason that there were Israelis.  Before the
> >expulsion, several Israelis were killed.  The Hamas believe that Israel
>
> But as far as I know their cases have not been reviewed on an
> individual basis.  I am not even sure if their membership has
> been proven in a court of law but they definitely haven't been
> convicted of specific crimes.
The point of the expulsion is that these people admitted freely that
they are members of the Hamas.  I've already ranted against the Hamas.
The fact that they didn't get a fair hearing in court doesn't distance
them from the terrorist organization to which they claim to belong.

>
> >been doing all that they can do to ruin them.  Further, at this point, the
> >Hamas are in Lebanon, (really Syria).  Why isn't Lebanon(Syria) getting heat
> >for
> >not allowing the Red Cross in?  Why is it just Israel that gets world-wide
> >abuse?  ..................................................................
>
> Come on.  That is a technicality isn't it?  In the first place
> they are there illegally.  Israel dumped them illegaly.  (You
> know Lebanon is not dumping ground for Israel.)
Surely, Israel dumped them there.  The question of legality is a judgement
call.  In Israel, it's obvious that the dumping wasn't illegal.  Their
Supreme Court upheld the legality of it.

>Second of all
> if the location is of such a paramount importance, I am sure
> Lebanon would be more than happy to transfer them back into
> Israel so that Israelis would be able to provide help to these
> people.
The point, which you didn't address, is that these people are in
Lebanon proper.  Regardless of how they got there, they are in Lebanon.
Why isn't Lebanon getting static for not allowing the Red Cross in?
>
> >> VMS
> >Jonathan
>
> --KAT
>
Jonathan

P.S.
Kuwait dumped hundreds of thousands of palestinians after the gulf war,
where was the critism?  Egypt expelled the Hamas in the '80s, where was
the critism?  Jordan kicked the PLO out of their country in the '80s ('70s)
where was the critism?  There were no UN resolutions.  There was no
world-wide condemnation.  What is going on here?  Heck, Syria owns Lebanon.
It has occupied Lebanon since '75, where is the critism?  Where are the
UN resolutions?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:40:15 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: new SC ruling

>I suppose someone will eventually post the real details of the case, but
>until then I am happy enough to emulate everyone else and simply post
>my opinions on what I *think* the case was about...

Great, that means that I can jump in... B)

>Was the "new evidence" unavailable at the time of the trial and the
>subsequent appeals or was it simply not presented by the defense, held
>in reserve, so to speak?  Perhaps there is no difference?

It was unavailable at the time; the attorney that spilled the beans was
bound by attorney/client priveledge to hold the information. He spilled
the beans after the death of his client, who confessed to the attorney.
The other person who came forward with information was the son of the
confessed killer, who claims to be a witness to the actions, and had
compelling reasons not to come forward prior to his father's death.

>It seems to me that this is a case where the state's governor should step
>in and do something.  I don't know, perhaps wave the gubenatorial hand and
>grant a new trial?

Actually, this was roughly what some of the Justices put forward, though
I think a governor can only grant a pardon, rather than grant a new trial.
What some Justices (as heard while driving, listening to NPR) seemed to
be saying was that if evidence could be presented that no rational
person could deny was proof of innocence then an exception could be
granted at the SC's option at some later date. If the evidence was
controversial; then it is in the hands of the relevant Governor to
pardon or not.

>                                                Andrew MacRae

-other Andy

PS- good to see that you are still lurking, Andrew. B)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:04:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Sultan and DoD policy
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

Excellent post, Mike.  One observation:

>      Lastly, I will mention a political cartoon that struck me as
> especially pertinent.  A person is standing in a cemetery with
> rows and rows of crosses marking the graves of fallen soldiers.
> Each cross is labelled "straight" or "gay."  The observer
> comments, "Boy, I'm glad THAT'S cleared up!"  Why should we
> stifle the zeal of anyone who wishes to serve his or her country?

I saw one a while back that I like even better.  An emaciated Somali
woman is sitting on the ground holding a skeletal baby.  An American
soldier approaches with a sack of food.  The woman looks up at him and
says "You're not gay, are you?"

Best,
Peter

> Mike McCarthy                   "Lafayette, we are here!"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:50:44 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [Jamie's response]

>From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU

>Jamie wrote:
>>The right of abortion is a right against the government. The government
>>may not restrict abortion in certain ways. It is not a right against
>>other citizens.
>(stuff deleted)
>>Scalia says they didn't. He says that the rights which they supposedly
>>had the purpose of denying were not, nor could they be, rights which
>>the law protects. The rights that the law protects are rights
>>against the government, not against organizations like OpRes.

>I'm confused.  I understand the idea that rights are "against the
>government" and so the government can't restrict them.  But I thought the
>whole point of the KK law was to prevent non-government groups from
>infringing those rights.  That's how the law read to me, anyway.

Well, you are confused because it's confusing.

What the law says explicitly is that private groups shall not
deprive others of equal protection of the laws. It is unclear, from the
text alone, exactly what this means. I guess the natural interpretation
is that it means groups may not interfere with the legal enforcement
of equal protection. But the second clause says that explicitly,
so we'd be left wondering what the first clause was for.

Remember, I was largely giving Scalia's interpretation. So it
may be that his interpretation just doesn't make good sense out
of the law!

I think he would say this:
There may be such a thing as a direct infringement of equal protection
BY PRIVATE GROUPS. The infringement would be, presumably, a targeting
of a certain race for maltreatment, or nowadays also a certain sex.
But, Scalia says, there was no such targeting by OpRes.

There are other rights protected by the Constitution, but they are
not relevant to the first clause (Scalia might continue). So the
second clause has to be brought in if the infringement of those
rights are going to be the basis of the suit. And (he might conclude),
the case has not been made out for the second clause.

How's that?

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL, @VAL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 08:40:59 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      "On Gay Rights ..."
Comments: To: val-l@ucf1vm.bitnet, jwales@iubvm.bitnet, olsenj@stolaf.edu,
          kousen@rayleigh.res.utc.com, klur@maristb.bitnet,
          srdjan%cathy@kri.fer.yu

"On Gay Rights ..."

This issue has fascinated me in its growing intensity - it would
appear, rightly or wrongly, that most gays see their movement towards
representation in the military, recognition of relationships by
employers for the purposes of benefits, removal of anti-gay laws
relating to sodomy and same-sex marriages all appear to be legitimate
issues pursued by gay civil rights seekers.

I personally would have little reason to love homosexuals, having
been sexually assaulted by five such individuals over thirty years
ago. However, I do favor same-sex marriage being allowed, housing
discrimination against gays be enforced the same way racial or ethnic
discrimination is currently covered under law, gays be allowed to
receive benefits the same way a heterosexual spouse might (be that
insurance, death benefits, or dependent's benefits), and I favor
repeal of the sodomy and anti-gay laws BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS (on
the grounds I've articulated about other behaviors - what two people
do with each other is NOT the state's business).

I feel we as a society have to be consistent. If we are to protect
all other minority groups, be they Jehovah's Witnesses or 7th Day
Adventists, blacks or Hispanics, women and minors, then it seems to
be gay people are another minority along behavioral lines in a
similar way as a religious belief or an ethnic group.

I've spent my entire life overcoming the prejudices I was raised with
- my parents basically did not like Jews, blacks, Catholics, gays,
some unionists (the Teamsters), Hispanics, "odd religions" and, to a
lesser degree, Native Americans (a group my father was fascinated
with, my mother could do without), and cigar smokers. I basically no
beef with any of these groups, though today I'm pretty hot about the
three young black punks who stole our car last night. But, that anger
is against those specific individuals, not because they were black.
I'd be just as angry if they were blue and had three heads and five
sexes - I do not believe ANYONE has the "right" to rip me off.

We either are the open society that we claim to be, or we are a
society determined to keep certain groups in "second class
citizenship" based on who or what they are. It seems to me a basic
principle. What do you think? VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:12:38 EST
From:         jc-s <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: DC

>
>Hmmmm...I seem to forget the name of our country--specifically the
>word that begins with "S."  Can anybody help me?
>-Travis

could it be....Stupid?

jenna
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:13:24 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bushwhacking Saddam
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Dear Brett,
>
>        If you seriously believe that there was not a Nintendo side of the war
>in the Gulf, then why did the military keep the pres in the Press [cess] Pools
>with out the ability to go and really find out what was happening in Iraq. The

        This can not be considered a "nintendo" tactic, merely sane military
thinking.  The last think I'd want (as a military officer) is some fool
cameraperson flashing their lights on me as I land on the beach (witness
Somalia).
        I think the CBS broadcaster (the one who was captured) learned why
journalists should not go tromping around on their own.

>muzzling of the press in the way that it occured was designed to dehumanise the
>suffering of the Iraqis and the fact that smart bombs were not that good and
>that they were not the majority of the munitions dropped over Iraq.

        The Iraqis suffering was only a little less apparent than the suffering
of the Kuwaitis.  Nor was the suffering of the Iraqis our concern.  Nor was the
suffering of the Germans, Italians, or Japanese during WWII.
        In fact, the suffering of aggressors, is IMO, a good thing.

        As far as smart bombs go, they were not a majority because B-52s do not
drop smart bombs.  But don't make the mistake of thinking that B-52s ran
bombing runs over Baghdad.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 10:25:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: The good old days
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >The American worker doesn't need to be freed from government.  Freed
> >from his boss is another matter.  There's a company in California that
> >docks its workers if they show up with a hickey.  They claim it's
> >because it distracts the customers.  There's another one here that fired
> >someone because he wouldn't falsify interstate trucking logs.  There's
> >nothing wrong with American workers, all right, but American management
> >needs a kick in the ass.
> >Best,
> >Peter
>
>         There are worker here in Dayton that used and sold drugs while working
> with heavy machinery.  There were arrested and put in jail, but now that they
> are out they have their jobs back because the company doesn't want to fight th
> union.
>         A worker wanders the plant all day, earning the nickname "the
> wanderer".  The company doesn't fire him because the union would fight it.
> Another worker comes in drunk, locks himself in a closet, and drinks all day.
> Once again the company will not fight the union to fire him.
> ...

This is a very good example of just what I'm talking about.  It's the
management's JOB to fire these people.  Of course the union will defend
them (that's it's job), especially if management has a history of
unjustified firings.  BUT, if the managers involved have really done
their job, they have gathered evidence and documented that these people
are not doing their jobs, and that they have let the employees know that
they aren't doing their jobs, and have given them a reasonable chance to
clean up their acts, they can be fired.  Maybe they'll need to go to
arbitration, but if the facts are as you say, they can be fired.  If the
management doesn't fire them, then those managers are screwing up even
worse than the employees involved.

But feeble excuses like "they don't want to fight the union" just don't
cut it.  Shit, that's like a prosecutor who doesn't bring a case to
trial because he doesn't want to fight the public defender.

>         It's not either/or it's both that need a kick in the ass.

And who is supposed to deliver the kick, government?  :-)

Best,
Peter

> Brett'
> (The company==GM)

(doesn't surprise me in the least)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:05:07 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: hypothetical situation
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>If the government tells us that we have performed "surgical strikes"
>and all casualties are military in nature, should a journalist release
>a report contradicting the official story, if the report can be
>verified? Why or why not?

        Yes.  The government is lying to us.

>Another thread of the thread dealt with who/how many are being killed.
>If 70% of the casualties are members of a minority that makes up 15%
>of the general population, is this a policy statement?
>fred

        How do you mean?  That we are targeting a minority group?

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 13:23:17 -0500
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject:      Re: tacky message inc.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

        Tacky? I'll see your tacky and raise you a nasty and unconstructive...
        MeesterRuckman, the pro-wrestling fans have always been here,
who else would buy into Limbaugh's ego babble but pork-rind eating,
mouth-breathing, Lee Greenwood-listening, capital gains tax-cutting
cretins?
        It is true, though, we all have to have a hero.  But I'm curious,
what exactly were you all doing during the Morton Downey Jr.- Rush
Limbaugh transition lag?  I have a theory about the resurgence of
country music...It kinda coincides, ya know?
                        Travlr-in a flame retardant suit-

P.S.  I was just up in Buffalo a while back, and found the blind
trust where Kemp checked his brain--anyone interested in
re-uniting the two?  He'll be needing it now that he has to find
a REAL job...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:21:01 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh and STAN JACOBS
              27 Jan 1993 10:38:15 PDT from <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>

Stan:

No, you aren't imagining things.  And it isn't just in LA.  Catch CNN
after the Sports but before the end of the 1/2 hour--dogs that live in
tree houses, witches that write self-help books for executives,
people that carve images of Elvis in ice (or wood or potatoes, or
whatever--or see images of the Virgin Mary in same), and on and on
and on.

Haven't you figured it out yet?  News *is* entertainment.  Trivia
*is* critical.  Politics *is* poetry.

Geraldo is reality.

Fire up the machine, Dr. Jack; it's just about over.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU