HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 11:47:41 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Original Intent

>From:         Scott Murray <wsmurray@UALR.EDU>
>
>I'm enjoying this discussion on constitutional interpretation.

Oh, good!

>I haven't
>seen any discussion of the sociological jurisprudence model. This theory,
>which I think was developed by Brandies or Cardozo early in this century,
>takes into account extra-legal factors such as conditions in society. It
>could loosely be classed as a noninterpretivist theory.

Right. It is perhaps the clearest example of a noninterpretivist
theory. (Along with Natural Rights theory, I guess.)

I think Cardozo called his view "pragmatism."

One slightly terminological point:
everyone thinks we should take sociological factors into account.
What Cardozo claimed was that we might sometimes ignore what
the Constitution says, and substitute our best judgment, if
we think things have changed enough since ratification that
a different kind of protection is warranted. (This is a very
unpopular view. It may be gaining some momentum, partly in
reaction to the resurgence of Originalism.)

I think this is wrong, myself. But lots of my conclusions would
agree with Cardozo's. I would just give different reasons, or would
explain the reasons differently from the way he would. (Would HAVE,
I guess.)

_Brown v. Board of
>Education_ is an example of sociological jurisprudence. The court took into
>account volumes of statistics in concluding that "separate but equal" schools
>were *in fact* unequal. The sociological jurisprudence doctrine was used
>in other civil rights cases, as well as some of the voting rights cases
>of the 1960s.

THAT way of taking statistics and so forth into account is not at all
unique to Cardozo's approach.
A Literalist could do the same thing. He could say, "Look, the
amendment actually SAYS "EQUAL" treatment. So that's what we
should demand. The framers believed that equal treatment did
not mandate integration, but they were wrong, as our statistics
show."

Consider my (fictitious) example of "toxic." Suppose the FDA
passes a rule saying that all "toxic" substances must be submitted
for a decision before they are marketed. At the time of passage, no
one believed that asbestos was toxic. Now we know that it is. Is
asbestos exempt? Clearly a Literalist can say that it isn't.

Note that this is NOT an example of change of meaning. "Toxic"
has not changed its meaning. We have changed our minds, rather,
about which things are toxic.

Similarly, I would argue, for "equal" treatment. It has not changed
its meaning. But we better understand nowadays what kinds of
treatment are (un)equal.

Jamie

(I think I can find some interesting examples of Cardozo's reasoning.
Want to see them?)
From: melin@hlrz24.hlrz.kfa-juelich.de (Stephan Melin)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: why gold
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:28:25 GMT
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH (KFA), Germany

I think the whole discussion about the gold standard or gold as money itself
lacks a clear-cut definition of money.

So here is my concept of money (which could be totally wrong, I'm not an
economist):
- Invention:
 Basically one starts with some sort of exchange economy: one exchanges goods
 or services for some other goods or services. 
 The next step is that people start lending goods/services to other people,
 in return they get something which reads: "I owe you ..."
 Now people start trading these IOUs - lo and behold: we have created money. 
 To get rid of the difficulties of comparing the value for e.g. an IOU for 
 one hour of labour and an IOU for 20 litres of milk, one introduces some
 unit, so that for example one litre of milk can be traded for an IOU worth
 1 unit. 
 If we look at these units: that's real money as we know today.
- Stability
 Naturally most people will be interested that the value of one unit (=$, if
 you like you can also say DM,Pound,Franc) will remain constant.
 In most economies:

       dValue($)  !
       ---------  = 0   (that is a definition !)                 [D1]
          dt

 has to be used for all transactions (usually enforced by a law).
 
 Agreed, usually this quotient is slightly negative, but it is illegal to
 use this for your transactions.


Now back to gold as money:
Gold would be nothing more than a return to an exchange economy. 
Growth of the economy cannot take place unless a violation of [D1] is
encouraged, because the amount of gold stays fixed but the total value of 
the IOUs increases.

When the government starts manipulating the money, to cover a deficit,
then the voters (hopefully) will kick this bunch of incompetence out of 
office at the next election. 


Best regards
-- 
Stephan Melin

melin@hlrserv.hlrz.kfa-juelich.de   ||    hkf418@djukfa11.bitnet

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Bob Packwood - A Bad Boy?
Date: 6 Jan 1993 14:16 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <POLITICS%93010512334986@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,       
  "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET> writes...
>Hello,
>   I was just wondering why the Liberals are not accepting Packwood's
>apology.  He does seem to be sorry for what he has done and even seems
>willing to be rehabilitated.  Isn't that the Liberal message for criminals?

I think the reason, speaking from the standpoint of an Oregonian, is that many
of us don't believe him.  It should also be noted that (1) it is generally
agreed that Packwood's probable stonewalling and mudslinging delaying the
original story was the deciding factor in the election results, and (2) two
Packwood aides have recently resigned accusing him of asking them to prepare a
fundraising letter on Senate time, an ethical violation.

							Dan, ad nauseum
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Visit Colorado - #2
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:00:59 GMT

"Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET> writes:

>   A minority is in reference to someone based on physical
>   characteristics.

So Jews and Anglicans aren't minorities?

[...]
>> These laws no longer protect homosexuals in Colorado from discrimination
>> on the basis of sexual preference.

>  I would have to dispute that based on what I remember that I heard.
[...]

Your dispute would be stronger if it was based on fact rather than
hearsay.

Here is the relevant part of Amendment 2: "Neither the State of
Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its
agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts,
shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or
policy whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct,
practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis
of or entitle any person or class of persons to [... a ] claim of
discrimination."

- Carl K.
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.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:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:03:02 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Intent and thoughts: a puzzlement
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        Let's take it to private email, Jamie.  I don't think the rest of the
list want's to see N hundred lines of us saying DID NOT  DID TOO

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:54:17 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Saddam & Georgie

>Wow. That is cynical. Personally, I think that Saddam is testing the U.N. and
>the real force behind it's resolutions

So do you suppose that Saddam just began to probe the boundaries imposed
by the UN, or has he been doing it for a while and it just started to
become "newsworthy" recently when George wanted to provide a little
distraction from the continuing Iran Contra business?

Looks to me like George has stolen more than a page or two from the
Nixon playbook.

>- Dan B

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:45:00 AST
From:         Ramon <R_ALEMAN@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU>
Subject:      Privatizations and standard of living
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> said recently :

>> Even a limited privatisation can drastically raise the
>> living standards.
>
>That's right. And mass privatisation can treble the efect. That's what we
>want, raise our living standards, don't we?

        Well, such splendid generalizations are not always true.
Historically, since they gained independence, mass privatization in Latin
America, Africa and huge parts of Asia has made the living standards go
down and the killing, repression and rise of dictatorships go up. Recently,
since some of them, (in Latin America at least), have again "achieved
democracy", (using the term VERY loosely), a drive for mass privatizations
became the rage on the 1980's. No effect of the sort you describe has been
seen yet.

 -Ramon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:10:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: re:re: freedom of speech

On Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:11:27 EST Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
> I am in favor of freedom of speech for Nazis, Stalinists, cat-torturers,
> Rush Limbaugh, fast food restaurants, Freudians, Libertarians,
> Alabamans, and every other odious ideologue I can think of.
>
> Wow. Controversial, huh?

What?  You don't really mean to tell me you support freedom of speech
of ALABAMANS!!!!! :)  -Travis
From: CHRIS@MIAMIU.BITNET (Chris Allison)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.xerox-l
Subject: Re: DOCUTECH
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:22:05 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU


   We have just gotten ours.  It will be several months before the networking
part is installed.  I would be interested in any answers you get.  Also in
starting a dialog as you and I get parts of this to work.
   My understanding is this thing is supported through a Novell print Queue.
It can accept input as a Novell printer and an LPD printer.  They provide
support for the Mac desktop, Dos/Windows, and a Unix platform.  While they
will print a stright text file, the support for this is designed around
Postscript protocol.
   We intend to use our VM system to provide an LPR interface to this from
MVS.  MVS prints to a VM process which shoots the output to the printer using
LPR/LPD.  None of the details have been worked out yet.

                  -----  Chris Allison
  Miami University
  137 Hoyt Hall             Bitnet  : Chris@miamiu.bitnet
  Oxford OH. 45056          Usenet  : Chris@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Popmail-Charset: English
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.xerox-l
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 08:16:37 EST
From:         Harry Berger <hxb6@POP.CWRU.EDU>
Subject:      DOCUTECH

We have a new DOCUTECH system. Has anyone sent files to the DOCUTECH for
printing from an IBM MVS system?

Harry Berger
Case Western Reserve University
Administrative Information Services
Manager, Technical Services
10900 Euclid Ave. - Baker 6
Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7014
email: hxb6@po.cwru.edu Telephone: (216) 368-6546 Fax: (216) 368-8880
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.libres
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:29:44 EDT
              <LIBRES@KENTVM.BITNET>
From:         EDITORS@KENTVM.BITNET
Subject:      Call for Submissions

LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal
(ISSN: 1058-6768)
(published monthly)

LIBRES is now accepting submissions for the Spring and Summer issues
submissions are due by the 15th of each month.

LIBRES publishes articles, drafts and reports of research in progress and
solicits reviews and responses from subscribers.   All articles, reports,
etc. remain the property of the author and may be re-published elsewhere.

LIBRES also publishes announcements, questions and responses for library
and information science related events and subjects.
Submissions and questions should be sent to EDITORS@KENTVM.KENT.EDU or
EDITORS@KENTVM

Subscription is open to anyone interested.
You may subscribe to LIBRES by sending a subscribe command by interactive
message or by e-mail.  To subscribe by e-mail message send an e-mail
LISTSERV@KENTVM or LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU (if you are on the Internet)
with the following command as the text of the message.

SUB LIBRES YourFirstname YourLastname

You must leave the subject line *empty* and please don't include any extra text
as a machine will read this not a human.

The Editorial Group:
=====================================================================
Diane K. Kovacs - Chief     dkovacs@kentvm  dkovacs@kentvm.kent.edu
Julie Gedeon                jgedeon@kentvm  jgedeon@kentvm.kent.edu
Leslie Haas                 lhaas@kentvm    lhaas@kentvm.kent.edu
Don Kraft                                   kraft@bit.csc.lsu.edu
Elizabeth Lane                              elane3@ua1vm.ua.edu
Amey Park                   apark@kentvm    apark@kentvm.kent.edu
Kara Robinson               krobinso@kentvm krobinso@kentvm.kent.edu
Barbara Schloman            bschloma@kentvm bschloma@kentvm.kent.edu
====================================================================
Barbara Berger
Tom Froehlich               tfroehli@kentvm   tfroehli@kentvm.kent.edu
Ellen Detlefsen             ellen@pittvms     ellen@idis.lis.pitt.edu
Rosemary Dumont             rdumont@kentvm    rdumont@kentvm.kent.edu
Stevan Harnad                                 harnad@princeton.edu
Ann Okerson                                   ann@cni.org
=====================================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:03:49 ET
From:         Barry Walton <BWALTON@MILLERSV.BITNET>
Subject:      RiceMail for BITNET vs. for Internet

After 4 years as a BITNET-only site, we just went on the Internet.
Obviously, I would like to continue using RiceMail to send e-mail
over Internet as well as BITNET.  However, when I use an Internet
address for the recipient, I get the following message logged :

**** Logging started for virtual screen MESSAGE on 01/07/93 at 14:49:56
DMTAXM103E File 8642 (8642) rejected -- invalid destination address

We are not using a mailer package - I believe sometime in the past
we set an option to SETMAIL DIRECT YES, which made RiceMail functional
for BITNET.  It seems that this error is happening because the
Internet address (obviously) will not be found in the local directory
or BITNET routing tables.  So, I got into the OPTIONS menu at the top
of the Send screen and under Initial options, changed 'Verify local ids'
to No_.  I also got into the options menu, went to the Send options,
and made sure 'Check local ids' was also set to No_.  However, I still
have the same problem - RiceMail will not send to an Internet address.
I do not think it is a system problem per se because I can send to
an Internet address via CMS NOTE.  Does anybody have any ideas ?
Ideally, I would like to change something in the globally-accessable
MAILB00K file (or another global file) that would take care of this...

Barry Walton   BITNET : BWALTON @ MILLERSV

Millersville University of PA
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:39:13 CST
From:         Bill Harvey <HARVEY@WUVMD.WUSTL.EDU>
Subject:      NETDATA support

Has there been an announcement about when/if MailBook will be able to
generate mail with an LRECL>80?  Does it already do that, and I just
missed it?

Thanks
Bill
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Rice University, Networking & Computing Systems
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:26:22 CST
From:         "Richard A. Schafer" <SCHAFER@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
Subject:      ? problem fixed by ESA 1.1

For a long time now, I've wanted to make the XEDIT ? command work
correctly in MAIL.  However, I could never get it to position the
cursor at the *end* of the line, but at the beginning.  Eventually
I gave up, deciding the problem was an XEDIT bug which I didn't
have the ability to fully trace.

On December 26, RICEVM1 moved from VM/XA 2.1 to VM/ESA 1.1.  And lo
and behold, the problem is fixed!  ? in that environment will leave
the cursor at the end of the line, just like it should.

I also believe (although haven't completely proved this to my satisfaction)
that the CMS window handling bug that caused a cleared window to not
correctly pop up at the bottom is also fixed in ESA 1.1.

I can't point to any specific APAR fix for either of these two problems,
but must admit to pleasure in seeing the problems go away.  I had a
circumvention for the window problem, which I'll leave because not everyone
is running ESA 1.1.

Richard
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 07:59:00 EST
From:         JCLUTCHE%PSUHMC.bitnet@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
Subject:      default settings for function key lines

In helping folks get started with RiceMail, we have to go into OPTIONS
and manually change the MENU, READ and SEND settings to have the
"function key lines" show two lines.

Shouldn't two lines be the default?  Any Suggestions to have this as
our default?  Thanks for your help.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
John Clutcher, Project Leader/E-mail Postmaster  Information Systems
Internet: jclutche@psuhmc.hmc.psu.edu            Hershey Medical Center
Bitnet:   jclutche@psuhmc.bitnet                 500 University Drive
Voice:    (717) 531-8682                         Hershey, PA 17033  USA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Rice University, Networking & Computing Systems
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 09:58:40 CST
From:         "Richard A. Schafer" <SCHAFER@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: error in compiling

What version of the compiler are you running?  I just went back and
recompiled that code with no problems whatsoever outside of the usual
warnings about Trace not being supported by the compiler.  I'm using the
5664-390 CMS REXX compiler.

Richard
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Office of University Computing
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:38:25 EST
From:         Nick Laflamme <NLAFLAMM@IRISHVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: RiceMail for BITNET vs. for Internet

You need some kind of "mailer".  The three most popular VM "mailers" are
the XMAILER package from Princeton, now at the 2.10 level, SMTP from
IBM's TCP/IP product, now at the 2.2 level for VM, and the relatively
new LMAIL package from Eric Thomas.  If MILLERSV is already on the
Internet, you're probably running SMTP at least.  Tell MAILBOOK, perhaps
via your MAILSYS XEDIT, that your MAILER's name is SMTP.

Many (most?) of us run with two "mailer"s.  We tend to use XMAILER (or
now LMAIL) as the primary mailer and then SMTP for mail specifically
going to or from the Internet due to added functionality in these
packages.  However, as a short term fix, using SMTP as the primary
mailer should be enough until you can decide between one of other two
and start to get your choice installed.

Nick

* NLAFLAMM@IRISHVMA.BITNET
* Dominique.P.Laflamme.1@nd.edu
*
* interesting phone numbers, effective 12/28/92:
*
* Nick's office:  (219) 631-8271      FAX:                (219) 631-8201
* IBM modem pool: (219) 634-2422      Network modem pool: (219) 634-2462
* Rathskellar pizza: (219) 256-0707 (no change)
* Chris's Ice Cream: disconnected since Sept, 1987 :-(
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 08:47:22 IST
From:         Pierre Dekel <CCSMPDK@TECHNION.BITNET>
Subject:      error in compiling

I try to compile the new source that i receive at last from Ricard ,
and here is the error :

sp con start :

rexcomp mailb00k xedit b = comp =

 +++ Logical(Strip(mail_option.psend));mail_option.send.orig.psend=mail_option.s
end.psend;mail_option.send.direct=Logical(Strip(mail_option.direct));mail_option
.send.prompt=Logical(Strip(mail_option.prompt));mail_option.send.nprompt=mail_o
tion.send.prompt;
Statement near line 645 is longer than 250 characters.
Ready(00040); T=34.12/34.40 11:17:24
sp con close

ccsmpdk@technion.ac.il
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:11:41 EST
From:         "Roy L. Lehmann" <ROY@NKI.BITNET>
Subject:      Adding functions to Ricemail

We have obtained a  simple spell checking package that I  would like to allow
our mail users access  to. This package is a series of  xedit macros that are
accessed  via PFK's,  similar to  the  way Ricemail  does cut  and paste.  My
problem is this: Since  we allow our mail users to  set their own environment
using mailuser xedit  and dynamically setting their PFK's using  the menu bar
at the  top of the screen,  how do I:
     1. Determine which PFK is  not in use?
     2. Where  do I set the  PFK?
     3. How  do I add the  PFK to the display  on the bottom of the  screen?
     4. How do I  provide an option for the  user to assign the PFK he chooses?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:03:08 CST
From:         Bill Harvey <HARVEY@WUVMD.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: NETDATA support

On Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:56:09 CST, "Richard A. Schafer"
<SCHAFER@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> said:
[...]
>Now assume you're wanting to send a piece of mail.  XEDIT needs a maximum
>line length assigned.  I can arbitrarily assign 1000 ...
>Any suggestions?

What about adding a WIDTH option to the MAIL command?

Bill
>Richard
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 10:52:08 SLT
From:         Umit Dericioglu <D03G005@SAKSU00.BITNET>
Subject:      systemwide RDRLIST YES

Our users get some other files as well as mail in their RDRs.
So, we'd like a RDRLIST to displayed while quitting the MAIL.

I've put a MAILSYS XEDIT file on a common disk with the
following statements:
   /* .... */
   'SETMAIL RDRLIST YES'

But, it didn't help. When I put it in my MAILUSER XEDIT file, it works.
Do I miss something here?

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