HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:51:19 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: C.E. not B.C.

In article <01GR0PPHV7MAA3CAT6@WVNVMS.WVNET.EDU>, KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU says:
>
>Paul wrote:
>>Allow me to explain the political correctness of A.D.
>
>O.K.
>
>>A.D. implies Christianity, which of course, as everyone knows is
>>politically incorrect.  It would be politically incorrect to use B.C.
>>and A.D. because of our non-Christian residents.
>
>Didn't you just say A.D. was politically *correct*?  Never mind.  First,
>would you please define "politically correct" and "politically incorrect"?
>That would help.

politically correct is what I believe, politically incorrect is what those
who disagree with me believe, or vice versa

>
>>The date changing is really pathetic, and I'm sure that it is a
>>politically correct change.  My professor still says B.C. instead of
>>B.C.E., and A.D. instead of C.E., but she always writes B.C.E. and
>>C.E. on worksheets.  Why, I cannot say?
>
>What makes you "sure" that date changes are due to PC?
>As for the seeming inconsistency in your professor's usage, that might
>simply be due to the fact that usage changes are easier to make in written
>work than in speech (I'm very gender neutral in writing, less so in
>speaking; I'm good at avoiding "there is" in writing, less so in speaking,
>etc.).
>
>>Besides, what the heck is the Common Era?
>>Why must we change the wording?
>
>I offered one possible reason.  And I'll give you a helpful hint for
>investigating the relationship between date changes and PC.  Find the
>earliest reference you can to "political correctness".  Then find the
>earliest reference you can to the date changes you mention.  If PC comes

Actually, like many trends, political correctness existed long before the
phrase was coined or became well known, so this might not be such a good method

>first, then you've got a bit of supporting evidence (but not conclusive
>proof, of course).  If PC comes later, then your hypothesis is pretty well
>falsified.  At least I think it is -- others may want to help me out on
>this :)
>
>I'll even help get us started.  My 1975 dictionary defines C.E. as common
>era, so that usage dates probably a bit earlier.  D'Souza's book was
>published in 1991, so "PC" probably dates a bit earlier (unfortunately,
>although D'Souza provides a quote from Donald Kagan, he doesn't date it).
>This suggests that the dating usage predates PC, but I'll check further.

I have books from the fifties that refer to BCE and CE, dismissing things
with the excuse that they are "politically correct" is the knee-jerk, lazy,
right wing habit of the nineties. In fact, it is now "politically correct"
to dismiss any change or progression as "politically correct" and therefore
inherently evil or bad.
--andy

>
>Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:54:59 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      irish election

Wedensday, 25th November sees the people of Ireland go to the polls to
elect the 27th Dail (parliament).  It's been a strange campaign, barely
three weeks, and none the worse for that.  The election was provoked by the
leader of the senior party in coalition, who insulted the leader of the
junior party, who proceded to withdraw his support for the government.

The most remarkable feature of the campaign has been the extraordinary
surge in support for the main left-wing party, Labour.  Irish politics has
traditionally been marked by an absence of ideology, having been dominated
for the last 70 years by two 'catch-all' parties.  This dominance has been
at the expense of Labour.

The first cracks began to show in this edifice in 1987, when the first
explicitly right-wing, or fiscally correct party, the Progressive Democrats
surprised everybody by winning 12% of the vote.  Most of this vote came from
the smaller of the large parties, Fine Gael.  It has never recovered from this
loss, and looks like losing further ground this year.  Remarkably, the
long-term winners from this development appear to be Labour, who are taking
support from Fine Gael, but more significantly, from Fianna Fail, the dominant
party of the last 60 years.   If opinion polls are correct, Labour could more
than double its vote on Wedensday, from 10% in 1989 to 22%.  If, as expected,
this causes a large drop in Fianna Fail representation, then the days of
single party government could be at an end in this country.  Since the founding
of the state in 1922, Fianna Fail have held single-party power for 41 of 70
years.  Until 1989.

In this election, FF was forced to compromise its 'core value' and enter
coalition for the first time, with the Progressive Democrats.  Thus was a
spell broken, and for the first time, the Irish electorate do not seem to be
afraid to vote for a more fragmented polity.

Voting is on wednedsday, but, because of the complicated voting system, full
results will probably not be known until Friday.  Counting begins on Thursday
morning.  I'll post the results and the likely governmental outcome when the
situation begins to become clear.


james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:57:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Holy War

Just saw an interesting and disturbing thing on the news:

Of the 28 military conflicts currently taking place worldwide, 14 of them are
over religious differences.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 07:10:05 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
              20 Nov 1992 15:02:38 -0500 from <STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU>

From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU

> Many people killed people in Vietnam even though they felt it was for bad
> reasons.  They felt it was their job as Americans.  When there is a war, the
> countriesare at war, not the people.  I suggest reading "All Quiet on the
> Western Front"
> by Erich Maria Remarque.

So what is our "job" as Americans: be truthful to our conscience
or follow orders no matter how unjust they are.  Didn't we blame
and then execute many who follow Hitler's orders during the second
World War?

I suggest not to read ANYTHING unless and until one can think
for himself.     :-)

> -Rich

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:48:59 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Wages and productivity

Aaaaaaahhhh!!!!

This whole little dialogue is giving me headache.  It is all a result of
my speaking just as easily in vernacular as in the English of the elite.

For the record:

I was not attacking Steve R.'s position, but expressing sympathy.  I am not
so small-minded as to use that type of argument.  I understand what debate
is about--I am Secretary-General of the Rhodes College Mid-South Model
United Nations Conference.

I actually appreciate -T.'s second response.  It really didn't offend me.
The first did and so I responded accordingly.

Finally, all this talk about what I meant and what I said and everyone
jumping into the fray is really nice, but makes me feel like a ten year-old.
Or at least someone's little brother.

I am not saying that this offends me, I am merely commenting on how it
could upset someone else.  I personally like it when others defend my
positions--it's less work for myself. :)

Anyhow, in the future, I will post fewer messages which don't contribute
to the general debate of the issue.  Not!

j.b.
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, 20 Nov 1992 12:06:02 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: stupendous man fails to live up to billing
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Stupendous Man:
>
>That was a very interesting bar chart but it only has ONE SMALL PROBLEM.
>What was the source of your figures?

        Sorry, that was from the beloved IRS, courtesy of the Wall Street
Journal (page A1, Thursday, Nov. 19, 1992).

Brett'
(Who DID put it in the archived version, but forgot to on the net version :)
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:28:16 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Flag Burning

In article <POLITICS%92111712142691@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, "Carl A.
Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET> says:
>
>> Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:49:33 EST
>> From:         andy <2893684@QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA>
>> Subject:      Re: Flag Burning
>>
>> >| Our flag is not just a
>> >|"piece of cloth," it is indeed a symbol of our country, one of if not the
>> >most
>> >|powerful of symbols.  What exactly do you find wrong about pledging
>> >allegience to a "piece of cloth"
>>
>> Would it not make more sense to pledge allegience to the country or its
>> Constitution? The US is the only nation on earth whose citizens pledge
>> allegience to a flag.
>
>    You forgot part of the pledge, "and to the nation for which it stands."
>The reason why we do not pledge allegiance to our "country" is because the
>word "country" refers to the geographical aspects of a "nation."  When
>pledging allegience to our "nation" we are pledging allegience to the people.

I'm not arguing nation vs country, I'm arguing flag vs anything else. True
the pledge includes the nation, but it also includes cloth. You say it's
because the cloth is a symbol, does that mean that as a Canadian I should
pledge alliegance to maple leaves (or maple trees), beavers and RCMP officers
or Poutine? Perhaps the French should pledge allegiance to long pieces of bread
and red wine and cheese, or the British to lions or the Germans to beer and
lederhosen?



>
>
>Carl---+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:53:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: gays in the military

JasonZ:

        First of all, I attended a large all-boys private high school.  Twice
a week, for four years, I showered among a group of men.  Some of them *had*
to be gay, according to the stats, and most of us knew that even then.  But it
wasn't a prison, it was a school - with strict behavior codes.  We had our
share of fighting students, but those type of confrontational incidents didn't
occur during school time, somewhere as public as the locker room.  I tend to
think that the same is for the military - it's not as if it's a prison, where
you always have to watch your back.

        My wife is an officer in the United States Navy.  She spent the summer
at the Naval Base in Newport, at a Navy school.  Her deck (floor, for the
civilians among us) was co-ed, with seperate bathroom facilities right next
to each other.  Rooms were segregated by sex, but the deck was alternating
sex every space.  There *were* sexual problems - namely, higher ranking officers
fooling around with students in the student's space (there were actually more
incidents involving female officers and male students than vice-versa).  We
hear our share of horror stories about life on boats

                                                      for women; rape is a
problem - although I know no stats.

        I am more inclined to worry about my wife living among people who
could sexually attack her (she is a medical officer, and physicians aren't
considered to be "real" officers by many in the fleet).  I can't think of a
single problem which could arise from her living among gay members - unless
I count the hours she'll have to treat gays once the neanderthals in the
Navy begin their much-talked-about reign of terror (although gays are already
ruthlessly persecuted, especially at sea).

        Another big point I tried to make was that members have been showering
and living among gays for decades.  One may propose that if gays "come out",
so may problems.  I'm not that sure that's the way it'll go.  I'm more
inclined to think that  (1) gays will officially cease to be hunted, (2) gay
members won't have to break the honor code in order to remain in the service,
and (3) most gays will *not* "come out" right away - and for good reason.
One can be happy about the ban's lifting but still be apprehensive about
the general reaction among members.  I think all these "problems" we're
being warned about just won't come to pass - at least not for a while, in
which time things may have sufficiently settled for solutions to be found.

        Sorry this was long - and I like the way this thread has run so far!
Tall on thought, short on nastiness.  Thanks!


-T.

"You are so proud of your intelligence," said the Master.  "You are like the
 condemned man who is proud of the vastness of his prison cell."

                        -DeMello, _One Minute Wisdom_.
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, 16 Nov 1992 09:27:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gays and lesbians in the military
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Kat:

What you are not really addressing is that just because someone is gay
does not mean that s/he will be attracted to someone of their own sex.
More often than not, in fact, they won't.  Another thing to note is
that there _are_ gay and lesbian people in the service no matter what
and the inclusion of lesgay folk into the miltary will hardly affect
the actuality of their involvement in it, just the level of fear which
they must face.  Anyone who has grown up gay has had to deal with stuff
such as group showers and sharing bunks with other kids and it just
gets _done_.  It's just something you have to deal with, but it's not
something that most of us see as a sexual experience.  Also, a lot of
people _are_ out to their squadrons and many of them really don't care.

Most of the arguments that the higher echelons are giving are being
given in a manner which really insults the lower ranks.  What they are
suggesting is that our military personell are incapable of conducting
themselves in a professional manner when under the knowledge that a
member of their team might not be heterosexual.  The military is a
_professional_ environment.  People should be expected to act in an
according manner and to be mature enough to not assume that their
bunkmates are lusting after them.

As the saying goes, "Just because I'm gay doesn't mean I like _you_."

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: UVa PCMail 1.7.1
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:18:10 EST
From:         "Scott W. Fischer" <swf7q@UVA.PCMAIL.VIRGINIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Electoral College redux
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
          <POLITICS%ohstvma.BITNET@Virginia.EDU>

Under the Constitution, NONE of the electors goes to Washington; they meet in
all the state capitals and then send their votes to be counted before a joint
session of Congress.  The main reasons for this were the hardship of trips to
the national capital and to prevent caballs by the electors.  SO there has
never been a problem of using federal tax dollars to pay for elector's trips;
also it is up to the states about how they want to pay them.




  Scott W. Fischer
Mr. Jefferson's Resort                  Mary Washington College
University of Virginia                  Fredericksburg, Virginia

                             Home address:
                         717E Mountainwood Road
                    Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
              (804) 296-4752
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:57:45 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Wages and productivity

Steve:

I think that the deal with productivity and wages is an national average,
where my explanation holds true.

I think your position totally sucks, but that is what happens in our
society which places a great deal of value on some things which really
have no positive contribution to society at large(ie athletes).

It is and has always been my opinion that people who work for governments
(local, state, federal, whatever) should be paid more than decently.  Their
services are very valuable and they should receive the compensation they
deserve for their work.

I believe that they don't because generally speaking, they work very long
hours at very difficult work, with as you said little $ and little other
benefits.

BTW, another example of those benefits mentioned earlier, is the case
of my economics professor.  His salary hasn't done tremendous things,
but his children go to college free at a school in a consortium with
Rhodes College.  He said that his income when combining his salary and
two chlildren in college is $60,000+ and this isn't including the
medical expenses and retirement fund and other pluses for working
at Rhodes.

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 09:31:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: partisan idiocy

>Linda has a good point.  I nominate Linda as 'Supreme High Matron of
>the List' (well _I_ like the title :-)) and if she gets too swamped
>I'll be glad to fill in for her job as 'Culinary Creationist' (or is
>that a bad term?) though it will all be vegitarian.

thank you thank you. i accept your gracious nomination.
glad to see another vegetarian on the list...you're welcome in my kitchen
any time.

>--Julie "in the beginning, there was nothing, and then G*d created food..." W.

yes, but it took a woman to make food interesting.
-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 12:51:58 EST
From:         Mike <ST801708@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Look Back in Anger, part 1: Missed Opportu

Hello, excuse me!  The money the government doles out is money created by labor
by the people who work.  Dig it?  Redistribution sucks but you've got to count
it as income.  Thank you.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:22:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Malcom X

It's interesting to point out the effect the new movie has had on sales of
the book by Alex Hailey.  The first year it was published (1966) about
190,000 copies were sold.  Including that year and up to and including 1991,
the book sold just under 1,000,000.  This year alone, it has already sold over
1,000,000 copies.

I hope, though, that the movie might do something more than sell Hailey's book.
Maybe Spike can come out with a *good* movie, finally.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:01:19 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      RE: Ever hear of a Compass?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

When Quayle tried to correct the boy's mistake, he was looking at a note card
 onwhich potato was misspelled.  He did not have a chance to correct the mistake
of whoever wrote the card.  There were many reporters and cameras there circling
like vultures waiting for Quayle to mess up.  As soon as the letter "e" was out
of his mouth the pens were scribbling, the tape was rolling, and the bulbs were
popping.

-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:00:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Intent, Consent, and Statistics

Jamie:

        Your analogy has no place in this discussion.

        Let me explain further than my last post (it was enough apparently
for most but I understand about you - with so many grammar problems comprehensio
n of written language must be a bitch for you).

Once upon a time, there was a group of people, called homosexuals.  One day, it
was discovered that they were contracting a terrible disease in alarming
numbers!  Other groups of people, called IV drug users, also caught the disease,
but not in as great numbers as homosexuals.  In another group, called hetero-
sexuals, the disease was rarely seen - except in some people who had had blood
transfusions.  They finally isolated the disease, and found it was a syndrome -
they called it Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, or AIDS.   They found it
was caused by contracting a virus they called the Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus,
or HIV.

After discovering that HIV was passed through blood and semen, researchers
cautioned: test donated blood for HIV; know your partner's sexual history,
wear a condom; be monogamous; or be celibate.  The homosexuals listened to the
researchers (even though famous, influential people liek cardinals and
presidents discouraged protection in favor of "giving up such a sick lifestyle")
and took great care to wear condoms, know sex hxs, and become monogamous.

Sadly, the heterosexuals thought they were invincible, and not many took pre-
cautions.  In fact, multiple sex-partners became more common in the 1980s,
after all the warnings about HIV.

For a long time, the homosexuals had by far the greatest number of AIDS victims
than any other sexual orientation (these numbers now officially including
another group, the bisexuals).  But AIDS is the end result of HIV infection,
and can sometimes take years to develop - up to 10!  So, while the number of
homosexual AIDS victims increased, and the rate of HIV infection among homo-
sexuals decreased, an astonishing thing happened.  While the number of full-
blown AIDS among heterosexuals continued to remain low, the rate of HIV
infection took off!  It grew by leaps and bounds!  They *weren't listening*!

Now, when we look at the numbers, we see the rate of HIV increasing *fastest*
among heterosexuals who have had multiple sex partners.  The *lowest* rate
increase is among celibate heterosexuals and monogamous/celibate lesbians -
but the next highest ( still quite low ) is among *homosexuals*.  They
listened!

We have no idea if it was happy - but many of the heterosexuals *didn't* live
"ever after" - they got AIDS and died.


-T.
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:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:03:49 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Quayle's debate
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Kevin:
>Quayle is not as dumb as some people would like like him to be.
>During the debate with Gore, he dominated the discussion and proved
>that he was able to think for himself, eventhough it ia very normal
>to be surrounded with top minds, who isn't? For sure he did not know
>the questions in advance!

Um, maybe you didn't watch the "truth squad" after the debate.  Quayle
"dominated" the debate with lies and misrepresentations.  I guess that's
not exactly *dumb*, but it's hardly admirable, either.

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