HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:59:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Do us all a favor Steve - lets us know to which posts you are replying!

The Subj: lines don't tell us that - your one-sentence approvals or dis-
approvals don't either.

Thanks

-T.
From: JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Reply to TJG's survey
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:22:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

1. I'm a student, but basically because I am unemployed-- I got laid off
   from AT&T this Summer and Rhode Island has free tuition to state schools
   for people on unemployment.
2. The frequency of postings has no direct correlation to the triumph of
   good over evil.  More likely, it relates to bored vs. busy.
3. Yes there are rules of etiquitte.  You should have received them
   when you signed on.
4. I don't drink, so I am not sure about virtual beers.  However, it
   would be against my advice to attempt to drink your terminal.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 14:53:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: This "12 years" thing

Brett:

        Fair enough - and apologies for the inadvertent stereotype!

-T.
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:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:59:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchannan and ACT-UP/RI
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Paul:

I don't care what Catholics practice or preach on their own.  However,
the Catholic Church is active on a POLITICAL front in opposing gay
rights as a LEGAL issue.  They are active in helping to activate
legislation which affects ME, not just Catholics, and that is why
I am opposed to many efforts of the Catholic Church in regards to
issues about AIDS and Sexuality in general.

--Julie
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:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 07:50:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Poor losers!
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Marshall:  While I have rights that allow me free expression, I do not have
the right to _unopposed_ expression.  I don't tend to just "ignore" people
because they don't like what I have to say or express.  In fact, I prefer
to challenge people to higher standards-- to not just react, though snap
reactions are a start, but to really think about _why_ they don't like
something and figure out what the real issue is.

So _I_ for one do not tell you to "ignore" art or music that you consider
obscene (can _music_ be obscne, or just lyrics?) and would rather not have
you telling me to ignore you, because I would much rather listen to you
and tell you why I (dis)agree.

I think the biggest problem between many opposing forces is the lack of
dialogue.  Most people involved in political positions from ANY side do
not have a clear understanding of the issues at hand, because most of them
have been drawn into the movement by buzzwords and emotional buttons
pushed by the movement's leaders.  I'm one of the people who will not
assert a position without really studying it first except, possibly,
when it comes to economic issues because they are still a lot newer
to me than social ones.  I am trying to learn and listening to the peopl
on the list who seem to know what they are talking about (and even the
ones who don't because it's interesting) helps a lot.  But when it
comes to social politics, I have spent twelve years studying them from
all sorts of perspectives.

So I feel this personal obligation to try to draw other people into these
discussions on a level which values information over conjecture, fact
over myth and reasoned thought over mindless reaction.

And THAT is why I don't want to ignore you, Marshall.  There is little
we can _know_ about what Clinton will do and what will happen to the
Country.  The best we can do is make educated guesses.  My fear is that
many of the guesses I am seeing are wholly uneducated, and when I press
for details, I am met with very little response.  What I am saying is
that we need to hear one another's voices.  Conservatives, Liberals,
whatever you want to call yourselves, this country should be one of
community, not contention.  We can disagree.  We can disagree vehemently.
But we have to still _live_ together.

So let's start trying, ok?

--Julie
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage
Date: 6 Nov 1992 05:35:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET (Andrew Allen) says:

>dp>No, the value of an individual's support of the government
>dp>is what's determined by his tax contribution.
>
>I see. Perhaps just off the cuff you would like to tell that to
>some career military people.....that their support 
>of the government by means other than tax payments is insignificant.

Government is outside the marketplace, so there are no controls
over it.  The more government, the more fighting.  One man one vote
perpetuates the growth of government.  A reduction in government
is more likely with weighted suffrage.  Then, there would be less
need for the military, and those careerists could go back into the
private sector and make the big bucks.  O.K.?


>Speaking of points, I presume you don't like my little suggestion that
>in order to make a fair estimation of the "value" that one presents to
>the government one should subtract the cash value of the benefits
>received, eh?

That's a rebuttable presumption.
-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:21:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Firearms; a rational viewpoint

One question, Robert:

        How do you rationalize your views about GUNS with the teachings

of Jesus Christ?  (Yes, the word *rationalize* was chosen carefully, since

I don't suppose there IS a way to reconcile the two).

Very Curious,

-T.

"An elephant will fit into the swimming trunks of a rat sooner than God
 will fit into our notions of God."

                                        -DeMello.
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:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:38:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Steve and "studies"
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

>It is in reference to various studies conducted by various researchers.
>I can't think of many names off-hand, but I do recall that Scarr and Soumi have
>published research showing the ill effects of children raised in such
>atmospheres.
>--Steve

What SPECIFIC atmospheres, Steve.  Sorry, but I need DETAILS about
this because quite honestly, I don't think you know what you are
talking about.  If I can look at the specific study, I can at least
have a concept about whether or not there is the remotest level of
viability to what you are saying.


--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:28:14 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
              6 Nov 1992 00:38:06 GMT from <jse2@NS1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU>

On Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:38:06 GMT JASON STEVEN EUCULANO said:
>
>In article <01GQSE0ZTUWY000OY3@RHODES.BITNET>, FOXML@RHODES.BITNET (MARTIN FOX)
>writes:
>>>Listen DICK, You talk about grammar and spelling, don't you know that proper
>>nouns (for example your dumb liberal ass name).  So shut up.
>>>                                        Jayce
>>
>>THAT was entirely inappropriate, Jayce, and illustrates your total intolerance
>>and immaturity.  This list is not for flaming -- it's for the exchange of
>>-Martin
>>
>OK, I can see your point, but is it not equally as disturbing to criticize
>someone for their spelling, typing, and grammar?  That is equally as rude if
>not more so.  By the way, I'd probably not make popular politician as I say
>what I think, not (ie "Slick"  Willie) tell people something simply to get a
>few votes.  Say what you will about Vice President Quayle, he sticks up for
>that in which he believes.  And THAT is something that I can respect.
>

OK, let me finish this once and for all.  The post I sent, and to which Jayce
replied, perhaps a little hastily was meant in the following context.   I
thought --Steve's original comment was in disgracefully bad taste.  What does
the topic of President-elect Clinton's family (and their looks) have to do
with his win?  So, I turned the post back on him, picking on the easiest
target I could find, basically to show how fatuous the original post was.

Perhaps the subtleties of irony were lost on Jayce, I can live with that.
All I ask is that you wait until Clinton makes a mess of high office, if he
does, then you will be justified in saying 'I told you so' to the list.  But
until then, kindly refrain from  acting like a spoilt child who has had a
toy taken away from it for bad behaviour.  You do neither yourself nor
your cause any favours by it.

>                                        Jayce
>                    KEMP/BAKER '96!!!!!!!
>                        Rush Limbaugh  Rules!!!!!


VOTE FOR GORE IN 2004!!   B-)

james
From: 8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (MIKE)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: MEDIA WON
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:59:29 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Eric
Concerning the economy
>one can only conclude...that people are very optimistic about the coming 4
>years and have invested heavily.
No stock markets are still down. It is more likely to conclude that the media
held back reports that the economy was improving until after the election.
these reports started coming out first thing the next morning. Hardly enough
time for it to be due to the Clinton victory. Things are better, not for
everyone but better. Let's hope this progress started under President Bush
can continue and it isn't effected by President-elect Clinton's belief that
high taxes and urban renewal renewal will help.

Don't be decieved any progress in the economy is not due to but just the
gradual worldwide rise out of the recession. The Democrates gained power
at a good time, things are improving and the people will associate this with
the president elect although it is through no initiative of his.

----mike......
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:18:44 -0400
From:         MIKE <8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>
Subject:      Re: Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder. ..

-T.
>     About flag burning: Light up, would you?
> oops! Gee, my editor really is terrible....

Now that was funny, but I still don't think we should take flag burning lightly

--mike...
From: 8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (MIKE)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Saddam Hussein & his little PARTY
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:09:57 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>The US can always kick butt again if Iran/Iraq/etc get out of line.

That is if president Hilliary lets Slick.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:08:32 GMT
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: love grows where my rosemary goes and nobody knows like me
Comments: To: POlitics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

Linda:

   It's my son Oliver's first birthday on November 21st. He and his
friend Henry are sharing a party on 18th.

   Have you any suggestions for what we should do for food, and what
we should put in the party bags of those attending (all around the
same age). Cost needs to be kept under control.

Dunstan.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 10:39:29 PST
From:         "(Jonathan Fisher)" <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Flat Tax Now!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Julie:
>
>         I have to tell the truth, as a member of the House of
> Representatives, Barbara Boxer had bounced hundreds of checks, and in
> my book that makes her corrupt.  Herschensohn closed a 20-point gap
> against Boxer by bringing out this fact.
>
>         I also agree about getting rid of tax shelters, and Reagan
> removed several in 1981 and again in 1986.
>
> -Paul
>
Paul,
	Can we, at least, try to be factual.  Boxer bounced 143 checks.  This
is significantly less than "hundreds of checks".  As for the corruption
line, I think that people who deliberately bounced checks were corrupt.
I don't put Boxer in that category.  I think that she failed to pay attention
to her checkbook.  While that worries me in a U.S. Senator, I don't feel that
it makes her corrupt.
The real reason that she dropped so far in the polls is because she let
Herschenson attack her without response.  She ran a poor campaign...and
still won!!
Another case of Good triumping over Evil!!

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:15:40 GMT
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Fairly random comments
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

>As a rookie to POLITICS, I'm curious about a few things:
>
>1.  Are most of the regulars academics?  Students?  Both?

Some of us work for a living, you know...
>2.  Should I expect the frequency of postings to drop now that good has
>    triumphed over evil?
Dunno.
>3.  Are there POLITICS rules of etiquette I should be aware of?  I seem to
>    recall a posting in the last few days to that effect.
Yeah, but none of the stuff about ad hominem attacks applies to Travis
>4.  If virtual beers are consumed every Friday afternoon, will I start
>    having virtual headaches on Saturday mornings?
Remember that some of us start Friday Lunchtime GMT...
>
>Cheers.  New Tim (Signature TJG)
--
 Dunstan  | Systems Design Division           |dv@gec-epl.co.uk
 Vavasour | CEGELEC Projects                  |From JANET:
          | Rugby, Warwickshire, CV21 1BU, UK |dv%uk.co.gec-epl@uk.ac.uknet
          | Tel: (+44) 788 563535             |Fax: (+44) 788 560767
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 10:43:38 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Good point Jimbo. Let me give one example as some proof that Clinton will
ruin the economy. Clinton's policies will make the poor poorer and make the
middle calss drop to the lower class. Here's how. Bill Clinton proposes
new taxes on businesses called labor training taxes. Now these taxes would
be implemented on a business for each person that business hires. Now this
is #1 going to cause many business to stop or decrease the number of hirings
they make. Also, business will tend to shy away from hiring lower class
people because lower class people often are unskilled laborers. Businesses
will not want to hire unskilled laborers because of the training taxes.
Thus, the lower class will face greater unemployment and will eventually
seek welfare. This will, in turn, shoot welfare costs for the govt. thru
the roof. In addition, the middle class will drift towards the lower class
because they too will face unemployment. It it weird that the Deomcrat in the
election propose some sort of a tax like this because, traditionally, they have
been known as the champion of the poor and common man. This goes completely
against that label....

This Jimbo is simply one way Clinton will hurt (ruin) the economy. There are
others that I will describe should you be interested...
--Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:17:23 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: CE and BC

From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET

> Let me clear up this B.C. and C.E. situation.

OK, go ahead.

> I don't understand why people are switching to the use of C.E.  It is
> useless.  You cannot tell me no other reason why C.E. is usedin place
> of B.C. and A.D. because the latter represent Christianity.There is no other
> reason.

Interesting reasoning.  I thought to put this reasoning to test.
I called the IRS and asked them why I should pay taxes.  They
said "because it is the law."  I replied, "can you give me any
OTHER reason why I should pay taxes."  I added, "since you cannot
give me any OTHER reason, it is USELESS."  They laughed and
hung up on me.

> -Paul

--KAT
From: mit2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MICHAEL ISAAC TEDESCO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Catholic tradition
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:24:21 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <01GQZGZ9WFCC000WXI@drew.drew.edu>, PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET writes:
>Andrew:
>
>        I did not intend to imply that the Church does not reform at
>times, but it is extremely difficult.  You know we are allowed to eat
>meat on Friday now, and not fish.

Are you implying that one is not allowed to eat fish on Friday?????
>
>        But, there are some issues that the church may never change
>on, and one of them is homosexual rights (another being abortion).  I
>believe any efforts to reform the church on those issues would be
>futile.  About tradition, the Church does have certain traditions that
>date back to 300 A.D. (B.C. is one of the political correctness
>crowd's really pathetic changes), and that the Church should not
>sacrifice tradition, because some people do not agree with them.  Most
>dissenters, by the way, are not Catholic (althoug some are) and have
>no intentions of being Catholic.
>
>-Paul
>
    I thought that the messages posted were supposed to be about politics and
not the Catholic Church.  Next time you decide to post something about the
Church, you should try to get your facts straight.   There is no need to try to
criticize the Catholic Traditions.  Maybe those people who aren't Catholic,
shouldn't worry about the Catholic Church, because the Church does not impose
any of its rules on them.  By the way, why should the Church change its
positions on issues that it clearly feels are morally incorrect.  So, try to
stay on the topic of politics next time you write.

--Mike
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 10:39:19 PST
From:         "(Jonathan Fisher)" <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Poor losers!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >The fact that Bush lied about Iran/Contra doesn't disturb you?
>
>         I am sick and tired of hearing about Iran-Contra.  For the
> past six years, a special prosecutor with unlimited resources has
> spent over $60,000,000 on Iran/Contra, and no one is sitting in jail
> for this supposed illegal activity.  It's so sorry that Iran/Contra
> keeps getting thrown in people's faces.  I hear it all the time at
> Drew, and I keep saying no one really cares.
This paragraph has a lot of mistakes so let's take a couple.  That $60Mill
figure for one; it has NO basis in reality.  Bush himself said $40Mill and
I think he was exaggerating.  So let's settle on $30 Million and say what
the hell difference does that make?  Number 2, there are, I believe, 8
people were convicted for their crimes relating to Iran/Conra.  2 more got
off on appeal because of immunity that Congress gave them.  No one really cares?
How about the 70% of the population that believe that Bush LIED about
his involvement with Iran/Contra?
>
>         Now, concerning President Bush.  Bush did not participate in
> illegal activites, and you cannot say with any verifable proof that he
> did.  [...] You cannot say
> that you know exactly what every president and VP has done concernig
> foreign policy.  Even Kennedy did things in secret.
The point is not did Bush do anything illegal.  I don't believe that he
did.  That is one reason why he was never indicted.  The question is did
he LIE about his involvement?  The answer is unequivicably YES.
>
>         My point is that this Iran/Contra business has been a waste of
> time and money.  It was a Democratic attempt to nail someone in the
> Reagan administration and it has not worked.
>  Bush should end this entire episode
> by pardoning Casper Weinberger (if he is set free, Iran/Contra is
> dead).  What does he have to lose.[?]
>
>         -Paul

I disagree with all of the above statements.
For example, Walsh is a Republican.
Actually, I believe, that the Republicans let the special prosecutor law
die.  Congress will probably try to re-enact it to find out about
"Iraq-gate".  Oh, that's probably not a problem with you either?

Jonathan
Xref: sparky bit.listserv.politics:17337 alt.activism:18465
From: U56503@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics,bit.listserv.activ-l,alt.activism
Subject: Re: ==> President-Elect Clinton Statement
Date: 7 Nov 92 04:06:55 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

In article <1992Nov5.101839@is.morgan.com>, mpiet@is.morgan.com (Mark
Pietrasanta) says:
>
>|>
>|>                   Statement of President-Elect Bill Clinton
>|>                                November 4, 1992
>
>[lots of political niceness deleted]
>
>|>
>|>                    Thank you, and God bless America.
>Did he really say that last line?  Is this a transcript of a speach?

Yes.  Yes.
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:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:36:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: right v. left
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Jason:

My comments, if you will notice, _questioned_ Jayce's veracity.  However,
they did not state that it does not exist.  I gave him ample room to
respond without loss of face.  What I said was no different than your
statement to me that "it shows weakness on your part that you feel...",
something which I could _choose_ to interpret as a personal attack, but
probably was not intended as such.  I won't harp on this, but I wanted
to make my point clear.

--Julie