HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:29:09 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: JAY JAY JAY JOY JOY JOY!

On Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:26:45 EST Kerry Stephenson said:

>JAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>Oh, joy!  You have returned!  I am in a state of complete and
>total rapture (well, not in the theological sense, but *you*
>know what I mean!)

>At last, I have a worthy ally (even if you intend to remain something
>of a "silent" partner).

Did you hear that, Robert?  The key word is "worthy."

>I want to have your baby!  Welcome back!

Now, I call that a true welcoming attitude.

--KAT :-)

>       --NINAR Kerry (KSTE, Missy J, etc., etc.) :-)
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:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:54:17 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [Jamie's response]

Jamie:

>>Clarification, please?  I know they're not a class in the taxonomic sense,
>>but how does one define a class of protected persons (or whatever)?
>
>Oh, gosh, I knew you'd ask me that.
>
>(Not a class in the taxonomic sense! Hmm.
>I suppose Jesuits could not constitute a class since we know that they
>constitute orders.)

Oooooooh!  Ouch :)

>On the other hand, suppose the group is "All women." A law that
>singles out women as a class probably violates equal protection
>(though in my opinion, anyway, it's really more complicated than
>that).

Is the "more complicated" part the stuff about scrutiny?  I was going to
ask about that, too.

>Anyway, in the absence of a good theory, the Court at least has
>agreed on certain specific classifications as "suspect" or
>"invidious." Race is one. Sex is another. Religion is too.
>But as Scalia points out, classifying people by a kind of
>behavior you object to, and can reasonably have some objection
>to, could not be the kind of classification that threatens
>equal protection.

Ah!  I'm beginning to understand.  Basically, we have a good classification
scheme, but disagree on systematic theory.  We have consensus on some
classes (race, sex, religion).  Others we're not so sure about (like sexual
preference?).  Others still we agree don't count (classifications based on
reasonably objectionable behavior -- or would sexual preference count here,
too?).  And the various types of scrutiny are supposed to help us sort
groups into "protected classes" and "not protected classes."  Is that about
right?

Kerry
shoot, let's turn a cladist loose on this stuff :)
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 15:48:34 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: fun with statistics
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Brett' questions Hillary's leadership qualities since "AK (I never knew
>Hillary lived in Alaska!) was 48th in education under her direction".
>This leaves one question and one observation.

        "Questions"?  I guess you missed the part where I said she's better
suited for prez.

>What was Alaska prior to Hillary's appointment? They couldn't have
>been any worse than 50th or better than 45th. That means they either
>a)improved B)stayed the same or c)got slightly worse.

        50th (or maybe it was 49th...)

>When the gipper took office, our standard of living, including jobs,
>health care availability, and education was within the top five. Now
>we are listed as low as 12th in some catagories such as teenage
>pregnancies and access to health care. That means that we fell from

        Sources, numbers?  ("Mere data" if you will.)

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:SWEDE@DRYCAS>
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 03:51:00 EST
From:         bone machine <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      bang your head
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Kerry, Dom, go to bed.  You're keeping me up with your bickering.  I've got
a busy day of doing whatever it is the virtual vice president does, and need
my sleep.

>Could somebody please e-mail me the results of the Virtual Elections,
>so I know who to overth- I mean, petition for redress of grievances?

Better still, I'll repost it:
>Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 08:37:43 GMT
>From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
>Subject:      We have a winner...
>
>...or seven losers, depending on how you look at it.  Thanx again to all who
>voted, and here's the way the cookie crumbled, in reverse order:
>
>Candidates                           Platform                           Votes
>
>WATERS, J                            She's one of us.  All of us.        0
>ALLEN, Andrew/RAFFERTY, Steve        Stetsons and the letter Y           3
>COLE-STEELE, J E/SABOE, Linda        bEEr and the lEttEr E               3
>SCHLEDORN, Peter/KUSMIN, Lorin       Groucho Marxism                     3
>STEPHENSON, Kerry/KILBURN, Kerry     Beers, Shoes, etc                   3
>
>DUNCAN, Evelyn/SMITH, Valentine M    Steady, Consistent, Thoughtful      5
>
>WALES, Jimbo/LORSON, Anneliese       4 years of intermittent scandal     9
>
>AAAAAAAAAAAND, the winners, weighing in at 11 votes, in the Beer, Shoes, Logic,
>Restraint corner, are:
>
>           ****    JOHNSON, Tim/OLSON, Gary W    ****

Yes, the tall guys won.  Ramon, our beloved deposed list dictator, already has
first dibs on attempting to overthrow us, though.  Please wait your turn.
(Unless of course you intend to conspire with Ramon, in which case you'll
have to move to a booth on the other side of the list.  You're sitting in the
'no-conspiring' section.)

As for Prince's new single, well, um, see, he's got this new album out, which
I call "Symbol Thingie", since for a title, it has this sort of picasso-
style version of the ama symbol, which looks like it should mean something
but probably doesn't.  All the songs on the album combine to tell a single
story, and "7", the last song on there, is the ending.  I haven't heard the
album, so I'm not sure what the rest of the story is about, but I think it's
something like you mentioned, only not really.

"kevin mchale! no!" (another mst3k fan - tres cool)

>--NINAR Kerry

not even the slightest li'l
bit curious as to what a
NINAR is, honest,
Gary W. Olson
Virtual Vice President
Secret CIA List Monitor
Keeper of the FAQ
Bearer of the Seven Keys of Fintoozler
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET
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 13:00:18 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care

Hi, y'all:
I'm daring to show my ignorance here :)

todddd (I think) wrote:
>>I gave a bunch of questions, Brett' gave some answers, but missed the
>>point.  Saying the average height of a man is 5'9" tells me something.
>>Saying Bill Clinton is slightly taller than the average man (even
>>without disclosing the previous statistic) tells me *something*.  Saying
>>Bill Clinton is the 48th tallest man in DC tells me nothing, since I
>>have no clue about the heights of the 47 taller men.

To which Brett' replied:
>        But if it's out of 50 people, then you know that Bill is among the
>tallest in DC.
>        Similarly, we know that Ark. is one of the worst, since it is 47th out
>of 50th.  No, we don't know how Ark is doing otherwise, but knowing that it is
>one of the worst is sufficient to dispel any "education miracles" hype.

Doesn't the meaning of "48th of 50" kind of depend on the mean and the
variance?  I *think* toddd was trying to say that, until we know the
magnitude of the difference between 50th, 49th, 48th, etc., the ranking
really doesn't necessarily tell us much.  It's possible, I would think,
that moving from 50th to 48th involved a greater improvement than moving
from, say, 2nd to 1st.

Or am I completely out to lunch ? :)
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:32:02 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Musical Presidents
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> This morning's quiz for the list members is a two parter:
> 1) Who was the last president of the US who was a proficient musician?

Harry S Truman. He was a piano player.

> 2) Assuming that such an inclination is not a bogus and irrelevant
>    indicator, how does this bode for the incoming administration?

If Billy played wild feedback guitar ("It was a stratocaster with a
whammy bar!"), then I'd be concerned. If he played classical cello,
I'd be scared.

>      todddddddddddd

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
Don't make a fuss; just get on the bus!
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:30:56 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: DC statehood/representation and democracy

In article <9301160002.AA01674@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Andy
Freeman) says:
>
>>Large U.S. cities, with the exception of Washington, already have
>>representatives in Congress. Washington has none. That doesn't
>>seem very democratic.
>
>So?  Neither is senate representation.  Neither is the electoral
>college.  Neither is representative apportionment in general.
>Arguably these are still good things.  (Hmm - the 1st amendment isn't
>all that democratic either but we seem to have some agreement that it
>is a good thing.)
Didn't taxation without representation lead to the American Revolution?

>
>>By the way, I don't think D.C. itself CAN get statehood, not without
>>a constitutional amendment. I think Congress will have to pull a kind
>>of trick. It will have to shrink the Capital down to a very small,
>>non-residential area. The rest of Washington it can make into
>>a state.
>>Silly, isn't it?
>
>It would make more sense to shrink DC and then annex/divide the rest
>to neighboring state(s).
>
>>>        Anyone for 10 Senators from the former city of New York?
>>
>>Ulp. Uh, no thanks.
>
>How about 10 from Texas?
>
>-andy thinks that large state delegations in Congress should be
>      constrained in ways that small ones aren't, even though that's
>      not particularly democratic either.  Democracy isn't necessarily
>      good, let alone the only good.
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 12:43:03 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Gennifer says: [who cares]!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >
> >On Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:54:08 -0400 The Integral Differential said:
> >
> >>> But Clinton did not *admit* anything either (except the Mario
> >>> reference and that it was basically him on the tape).  And many
> >>> tape-analysts said that the tape had been "doctored"
> >>
> >>        Except that show where Hillary said she had forgiven him....
> >>
> >>Brett'
> >
> >I saw the show.  Bill admitted to no specific sin and
> >Hillary did forgive him but for an unspecified
> >behavior.
> >
> >Let's offer some substantive facts or drop this.
> >
> >--KAT
>
>         Look this is all standard political nonsense:
> [blah, blah, blah]
>         So let's drop the "he didn't do it because he never admitted it", ok?
>
Right.  Let's go straight to the proof of whatever it is that you think
that he did.  Where is it?  There is none.  In fact there is less than
none.  Come on Brett', cough up some proof or give it up.
> Brett'
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:59:47 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rush
              23 Jan 1993 22:49:55 -0700 from <DMADDALONE@UH01.COLORADO.EDU>

Dearest Dom:

Ah, I see the problem.  Your macho attack when ridiculed response is
predicated on the assumption that I am a fellow, er, fellow (hence,
the curious assertion that my girl will be yours within the week.)

Such is not the case.  The "my girl" bit is a reference to executive
nomenclature, used in a form of witty repartee with which you are
apparently unfamiliar.

Hopefully we can continue this spirited discussion with the understanding
that you need not impugn my manhood to make points.  Indeed, I fear
it makes you look a bit ridiculous.

As for the language of the playground, I'm afraid that stringing
together obscenities and other words that make fourth-graders
giggle doesn't qualify as either argument or satire.  Not even
when you use hyphens.

Ciao,

--NINAR Kerry
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: broader question
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:01:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

-T.:

>> I have always disagreed with the penalty that takes away voting rights
>> from convicted felons, in case you're wondering.  If the "system" is
>> to work, then we must proceed on the presumption of rehabilitation/
>> second chances.  If you don't accept that, then each crimes' penalty
>> must be life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

David Clem:

>I agree with you, T., but not with the last line (sorry :-) ).  If the
>penalty is paid/served, then most all rights of a citizen should be
>reinstated.  The one exception I can think of would be gun ownership
>for those convicted of violent crimes.


First of all, David, the "last line" was not meant to be a suggestion.
What I was trying to get at is this:  if you don't believe that criminals
_can_ be rehabilitated..._can_ be given second chances, then you might
as well lock 'em up and chuck that key.  Granting them "release" and
then limiting their freedoms, marking them for life, etc., will
only defeat them in the long run.

BTW - I agree about the guns; however, limiting gun ownership while we
still live in the Wild West as far as gun laws and gun control
sentiment are concerned would do litle good.

The supposedly "honest" NRA member easily (and quite _frequently_) picks
up some cash strawman-selling to ex-cons.  We have to make guns
inaccessible - period.  Those ugly relics of what should be our
shameful _past_ ought to be discarded with the completely false notion
that having a gun makes one "safe".  As long as guns are freely passed
around, we'll never achieve the goals we set for ourselves as a society -
especially those supposedly set for us 2000 years ago....pretty damn
sure _he'd_ be a member of the NRA, eh?



-T.
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:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:28:06 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Saint Richard
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>But you
> do have to give it to RMN, foreign policy, secret wire tapping,
>burglaries, slush funds for bribery, obstruction of justice... What a well
>rounded guy!  We should bring him back as King...

        Nixon's crime was not Watergate (break-in, etc.) but his attempt to
cover it up and prevent prosecution(s).
        The Repubilcan Party (elements) decided they needed to bug the Dem's
and find out their strategy for '72. (!)
        As for any White House tapes...that has been done by every president
since (at least) FDR.

>>>>Unlike Clinton, he had the media against him.
>        Ohh, poor Richard... You don't think maybe his complete distrust
>of the democratic system (as well illustrated by his Watergate actions)
>had something to do with his dealings with the media?

        Nah, they hated him since after the "Checkers" speech.
:)

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:41:51 EST
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: 12:01 PM
              22 Jan 1993 07:35:07 CST from <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>

>   i heard this a while ago, dunno where. appropriate, i think . . .
>
>   "republicans want to make everyone equally rich. democrats want to
>make everyone equally poor."
>
Hmmmm.... The way I heard it was "Democrats want to take my money and
give it to a bunch of poor people who haven't earned it and don't
deserve it.  Republicans want to take my money and give it to a bunch
of rich people who haven't earned it and don't deserve it.  Now they
both agree on the basics; TAKE MY MONEY!"
    toddddddddddd
>rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:21:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Further comments on Iraq ...

>>If the US is ever held to account for its numerous war crimes, and the UN

>        Which would be?

>Brett'



Tell you what...would steering you towards the topics

Panama          Grenada         Vietnam

keep you busy with the answer for a while?

Don't want to inundate you with them ALL at once...


-T.
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:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:38:17 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Business Optimism

Hiya:
Brett' wrote:

>        It's too bad no one pinned Bill down to a specific unemployment number.
>
>        Let's do a list poll:  what's your prediction for unemployment at the
>end of January, 1994?
>
>        I think it will be 8.3%

Can I use a random number generator?  I don't know nothin' 'bout economics
:)  Seriously -- whichever way the numbers go, what kinds of evidence can
we legitimately use to decide who's to blame (or who's to cheer)?  Honest
question -- I suspect Clinton didn't have a whole lot to do with Sears
stores closing (didn't they just get hit with a price-fixing bust?).  On
the other hand, if unemployment goes down, I wouldn't know where to begin
to look for evidence that he was responsible for that.

Help?
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:40:51 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Organization: Institute of Computer Science, Jagellonian University Cracow
Subject:      Re: Furtherance of a discussion ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Jan 23, 93 2:38 pm

Titivillus pisze:
>>
>> (MUCH DELETED from this most glorious Val vs. Caius argument)
>>
>> The arrows belong to Caius, in case you care.
>>
>> > The essence of the Right is to support free-market and property rights for
>> > everybody not for a group. But if property rights are threatened by the
>> > radical socialists both big and small business are on the right.
>>
>> Caius, you are right. The Stalinist regime and the actions of Pol
>> Pot have analogs in Nazi Germany.

Thank you for understanding.I thought I had learned Chinese instead of English.

>> Caius, you are wrong. Classical Liberalism, the precurser to the
>> modern Left, came up with the concept of Lassaiz Faire capitalism
>> while Conservatives were defending monarchism, an authoritarian
>> construct, by definition.

I see no contradiction between monarchism and capitalism.

There are two separate aguments: political and economic.

I agree that authoritarian, monarchist solutions are usually asossiated with
the Right, while the leftists are usually democrats (at least verbally, in real
life democracy is difficult to implement; even Communists called themselves
TRUE democrats.)

Both monarchy and republic are only tools from the economic point of view.
They can be used to justify and introduce capitalism or socialism.

On the economic level supporters of the natural developnemt of capitalism
based on individual values seem to belong to the rightist movements, while
the leftists prefer the state to perform some equalizing or redistribution
tasks.

The only difficulty you may have with the above classification is the
STRONG STATE. If the state is strong in DEFENSE from foreign dangers, or in
preventing social disorder inside the country, it surely belongs to the
rightist political concept of authoritarian or monarchist thinkers.

If the state is strong in REGULATING the economic life (e.g colour of your
dress (China), prohibits possesion of gold (USA 1970s), puts quotas on
employees, prohibits some categories of trade without special permission,
enforces compulsory "social insurance", deprives your property rights, etc
it is a leftist economic design of redistributing state.

I believe the latter is the most important danger to our liberties.

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ucf1vm.bitnet
X-VMS-To: POLITICS
X-VMS-Cc: TFENWICK
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:50:00 EST
From:         "Toby Fenwick, Middlebury College" <TFENWICK@MIDD.BITNET>
Subject:      Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.bitnet

Brett!

        Yes! Let's appoint some qualified people to the Supreme Court.... the
best 9 jurists in the nation... Like the Governor of New York, for example.
How can you sack an SC justice?

Tpby
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:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:12:16 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      A brief snippet on Bosnia ...
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

Fighting broke out at Mostar today, where Serbs reportedly began a
cannonading of the city. Mostar has reportedly been a site of fighting
between Croatians and Muslims, but roughly 40 days of "peace" had occurred
between the Serbs and the besieged in Mostar. It is said in the news that
this renewed fighting may jeapordize the peace talks, what do you think? VMS
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics