HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.vmxa-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:51:05 EST
From:         Andy Hanushevsky <ABH@CORNELLC.BITNET>
Subject:      Cornell Problem Tracking System
Comments: cc: NHS100T@ODUVM.BITNET

>I'm interested in getting info on the Cornell PROBLEM system...  Who uses
>it?
About 100 installations spread across industry, non-profit corporations,
and universities use the system.

>How good is it?
Since I'm the author, I'll defer that answer to people who actual use
the system.

>And how do we go about getting it?
The only way to get the current version (4.2) is to send me a request
(internet abh3@cornell.edu or for bitnet abh@cornellc) and I'll ship
the system over bitnet.

>How can I get (purchase?) that and if there is a charge, how much?
The system is free of charge with the proviso that you don't try to sell
it or any part of it (i.e., usual freeware policy).

>Does PROBLEM run in VM/XA?  And VM/ESA?
The system has been checked and found to run in CMS 6 or under in
370 or XA mode virtual machines. Since it uses standard CMS interfaces
(it's mostly written in REXX with some assembler) it should run in
VM/ESA using CMS 9 or lower.  The system is standalone and has no
software prereqs other than CMS and optionally, for additional
performance, the REXX run-time compiler library.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.vmxa-l
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:39:54 EDT
From:         Nancy Salyer <NHS100T@ODUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Cornell PROBLEM System (and getting a 92 VM workshop tape)

I'm interested in getting info on the Cornell PROBLEM system...  Who uses
it?  How good is it?  And how do we go about getting it?  I know (at least
I saw mail to indicate) that it is on the 92 VM Workshop tape.  How can
I get (purchase?) that and if there is a charge, how much?  We are currently
running VM/XA 2.1 and maybe sometime in the future (near hopefully) will
be going to VM/ESA.  Does PROBLEM run in VM/XA?  And VM/ESA?  Thanks for
your help....
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Central Michigan University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.vmxa-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:40:07 EST
From:         Carl Kinney <3M4MLBS@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Cornell PROBLEM System (and getting a 92 VM workshop tape)

On Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:39:54 EDT Nancy Salyer said:
>I'm interested in getting info on the Cornell PROBLEM system...  Who uses
>it?  How good is it?  And how do we go about getting it?  I know (at least
>I saw mail to indicate) that it is on the 92 VM Workshop tape.  How can
>I get (purchase?) that and if there is a charge, how much?  We are currently
>running VM/XA 2.1 and maybe sometime in the future (near hopefully) will
>be going to VM/ESA.  Does PROBLEM run in VM/XA?  And VM/ESA?  Thanks for
>your help....
We are using the FREE Cornell PROBLEM Reporting System here at Central
Michigan University.  We have modified the REXX Execs to fit our needs.
We like it very much.  It has been in production about 2 months.  We now
have about 1500 problems recorded, probably about 300 open, the rest closed.
We have found the author to be very helpful.
The author is: Andrew Hanushevsky
               abh.cornellc  (BITNET)
               (607) 255-6142

Carl Kinney, VM Systems Programmer
Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.vmxa-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:49:31 LCL
From:         "DELANEY, BRUCE" <PA6460@UTKVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Cornell Problem Tracking System

  Thanks Mike... Have a nice weekend Bruce
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:52:29 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Clinton's Cat

On Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:32:54 EST Jamie said:
>
>Frothing, and proud of it,
>Jamie

Linda, I think it's time for Jamie to have his beers. :)

Or a rabies shot. :)  :)

Evelyn (going home to find her tape of Frank Langella as Dracula)
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Everything I do...
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:47:24 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

...I do for me.

I hereby put the entire list on notice that every single political
position I advocate, I advocate because I think that such is BEST
for me.

And... unless something real danged interesting or funny pops up
here pretty soon, I'm gonna follow 'Liese into the great SET NOMAIL
beyond.

Like: would some of these new conservatives please answer my criticism
that their contradictory positions on individual liberties are 
destructive to capitalism?  Eh?

--Jimbo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 10:21:49 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: advice and consent

From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>

> T, I still don't get it.

Yeah, that is what President Bush said, minus the "still."   :-)

> The cabinet is not elected, but, you point out, it must be approved by
> an elected body, the Senate. True.

No Jamie, not "an" elected body but "the" elected body.  "The" one
which is mentioned in the Constitution (oh please God, let it be
mentioned in the Constitution :-).

Would Jamie replace approval of the Supreme Court Justices
by the Senate with the approval of the President?

> Jamie

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:46:54 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: right v left

OK, Robert, my last one on this subject and you can have your
last too.

Robert says that social engineering isn't inherently bad, that,
conservativee social engineering is good while liberal social
engineering is bad.  Well, if that is all Robert could offer then
he should simply say conservatism is good, liberalism is evil,
unsub, and live happily ever after.

Actually I was under the delusion that conservatism doesn't
like government intrusion and that ANY social engineering is
bad.  Which by the way makes the phrase "conservative social
engineering" an oxymoron.  But maybe I was wrong on this one.
(Notice I am not challenging Robert on this one.)

Robert is saying that abolishing laws against segregation on
public facilities was a "conservative social engineering" and
therefore was good.

If conservatives were FOR this alleged "conservative social
engineering" then (and I am deducing here) Robert must believe
that liberal were against it.  Does Robert really believe
that or does he think that in the above example liberal
and conservatives were in total agreement?

That's all, unless Robert offers a new angle.  (That, I seriously
doubt.  :-)

--KAT
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: -Rich & The Clintons
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:00:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"

A couple of things to Rich:

        The *problem* people had with Clinton was that he "dodged" the draft -
THAT was the main point.  Now, when someone brings up that Reagan dodged, you
say  uh, no, that wasn't the problem...ummm, uhh...the uhh...fact that Clinton
led protests and Reagan didn't....yeah! that's the ticket!...yeah...

Sorry, doesn't wash.  You were caught by your own argument.  Face up to it.

        You wrote that Clinton's vav

(oops) vacation home is Linda Bloodworth-
Thomason's house in CA.  Good. You watch the news.  Bad. You don't listen well.
It was reported that the Thomasons (LONGtime friends of the Clintons') have
*recently* purchased a vacation home in CA and would *offer* it to the Clintons
as a getaway.  I still don't see the relevance of either this or her writing
his speeches; EVERY pol has writers, and Clinton never tried to claim sole
authorship!

        As far as the press conference goes, some stupid reporter asked Clinton
if Hillary stayed the entire dinner - even afterward - and Clinton said yes.
"The whole time.  I think she even knew more about some things than we did."
The Congressmen and Gore behind him smiled and nodded.  It would seem like
they were either in agreement or it was so trivial as to not warrant a response
.  Why did that bother you?  Does the first First Lady in history to have an
advanced degree threaten you that much?

        I think you're grabbing at tiny, little straws.  Give it up.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:11:20 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Barbara and Hillary
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> > Thanks for this.  I desperately wanted to be a fly on the wall listening
> > to their conversation.  I'll bet they were at each tooth and nail!
> >
>
> I'm sure they weren't at each other "tooth and nail."  I was struck by
> the knowing weariness of Mrs. Bush, the beaming optimism of Mrs.
> Clinton, and the fact that both women, when they were together,
> visibly did try to make the best of a very awkward situation.
>
Yeh, but.  Barbara is known to be politically viscious in private.
I would like to know if she kept the decorum which she (as always)
presented to the press when they were in private or whether she let
her true feelings be known.

Probably won't ever know.

Jonathan
From: jfisher@NETXWEST.COM (Jonathan Fisher)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:28:02 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> There were many people against Vietnam that did not protest against it.  Also,
> Clinton's dodging was a "slick" whereas Quayle simply used family influence.
> -Rich
>

Rich,
Your insipid arguments constently amaze me!

So Clinton's dodging was "slick" because he used every legal avenue
available to him??!  If he had "family influence", then he wouldn't have
been slick?!!
This is a reason to choose a President?

Jonathan

P.S.
"many people against Vietnam that did not protest against it"?  If true,
so what?  But how could such a partisan statement be confirmed?
Are you saying that someone who wants to be president can't protest the
policies of their government?  What are you saying Rich??
From: 2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (andy)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Minority President?
Date: 18 Nov 92 01:16:37 GMT
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston

In article <POLITICS%92111117185608@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>,
STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU says:
>
>I believe the point Brent was trying to make when he said that if Bush got all
>of Perot's votes he would have won, is that 53% of those who voted did not
>vote for Clinton for one reason or another.  That means that if there were a
>better candidate than Bush, Perot, and Clinton, he or she would gotten more
> votes than Clinton.  If Perot were not in the race, most of the Perot
> supporters
>would have voted for President Bush.

Well in 1988 a majority of eligible Americans didn't even vote which means Bush
only got the votes of about 27% of the eligible population. Does that mean Bush
should not have been President or lacked a mandate? After all if all the
people who didn't vote did vote and voted for Dukakis, Bush would have been
crushed!  Also, if all the people who voted for Clinton voted for Bush and vice
 versa, George Bush would have won! and if he had female anatomy, he'd be a
woman!
>
>--Rich
From: sme3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SCOTT MATTHEW ESTRIN)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: CE, BCE, and God
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:39:36 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

OK, to sum it up once and for all:

BC: Before Christ   ... although somewhat inaccurate, it means the years
                        before Christ was born, before the year 1
BCE: Before the Common Era ... The COMMON era is this set of years by which
                                our calendar is now based (1, 2, 3, ... 1991,
                                1992, ...).  BEFORE this era, before the year
                                1 is what BCE refers to
the meanings of AD and CE are apparant after understanding BC and BCE

My point: BC and BCE mean the same thing, but one directly involves religion,
and one doesn't directly involve it.  (Of course the Common Era started
approximately when Christ was born)

However, in the definitions I gave, one implies religion and the other
doesn't.  Rather than non-Christians, like myself, to go by some other
calendar (What year is it now, 5754?), we choose to use the calendar which is
in standard use worldwide.  But why should Christ or God or anyone be named?
I obviously prefer BCE/CE to BC/AD, but use of this in all future use would be
sufficient.  There's no need to rewrite every history book to the new
terminology.

Which brings me to the second part of my subject.... "God"

Here are two quotes from America, the country that accepts all religions.
"In God We Trust"
"...one nation, under God, indivisible..."

God should not be on our currency or in our pledge.  Rather than please
everyone "In God/Allah/Buddha/Satan/blah/blah We Trust", why not drop the
phrase altogether?  The US invites all religions, but just because the
majority of Americans believe in God, that doesn't mean that "In God [All
Americans] Trust".

The same thing goes with the pledge.  "...for which it stands, one nation,
indivisible, with liberty...".  That's how it once was, and how it should be.

---
In this whole message, I'm not suggesting that a big movement be started to
change this.  We've got much more important things to worry about in this
country than the questionable separation of Church and State.  I'm just
curious to how you think these topics SHOULD be...

                        - Scott

                        
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 12:44:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: partisan idiocy

>Does the list have a "basic sanity czar" to step in when the arguments
>get _really_ silly and whip everyone with a wet noodle?

i don't think we have a sanity czar, and i might not like that cause i'm not
quite sure i'd pass a basic sanity screening.

*but*, i'd be willing to step in as "list mother" and chastise, punish, and
administer wet noodle whippings when appropriate. i mean, what the hell, i'm
already doing the list cooking.

-linda
From: PBICKFO1@ITHACA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Gays and lesbians in the military
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:26:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

A relevant story here to follow Chris' story.  My brother served on the
U.S.S. Coral Sea as a Marine.  He says it was common knowledge that the
gay community (most of them, at least) worked in Sick Bay, as well as in
the medical offices.  No one on board the ship would taunt, tease, your
even physically harm any homosexual because, the very next day he would
be called to Sick Bay, told that all his medical records were missing
(they had actually been thrown overboard), and thus he would need every
single shot possible given to him again.  The moral of the story is, Chris...
everyone on that ship KNEW about the gay community.  If you don't, I'm sure
all you gotta do is ask around.

Pieter
PBICKFO1@ITHACA
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:02:13 -0500
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Barbara and Hillary
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

> Thanks for this.  I desperately wanted to be a fly on the wall listening
> to their conversation.  I'll bet they were at each tooth and nail!
>

I'm sure they weren't at each other "tooth and nail."  I was struck by
the knowing weariness of Mrs. Bush, the beaming optimism of Mrs.
Clinton, and the fact that both women, when they were together,
visibly did try to make the best of a very awkward situation.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:13:00 EST
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Flag Burning

> Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 11:32:03 -0500
> From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
> Subject:      Re: Flag Burning
>
> Brandon:
>
> I totally agree with everything you said, but you did miss my point about
> Pearl Harbor.
>
> The Japanese attacked the base, not because they wanted to invade the US,
> but because they wanted to remove the US strategic force in the Pacific
> so that they could do as they wanted in the region.
>
> There was never any intent to take over the US.  The result is that US soldier
s
> fighting in WW II were not fighting in defense of our soil, but for political
> reasons.

    Don't forget that they were fighting for the deaths of their fellow
soldiers.  Some who were buried alive in sinking graves.

>
> The soldiers may have thought that they were fighting for their country's
> defense, but they weren't.  It is not their fault, but by this time in history
,
> everyone should realize that the US entered the war for political reasons
> dealing with Europe, not Japan.
>
> j.b.

Carl---+
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:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:33:47 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>NNow _you_ are putting words in my mouth ;-):

        Oops, hey!  Give 'em back. :)

>I do not "disappove" of what Clinton did to avoid the draft.
>I simply do not equate it with genuine anti-war protesting.  I
>see nothing _wrong_ with it but I do not think of it some heroic
>thing to do.

        It seemed that you didn't like the manuevering...but as they say about
assumptions...

>So please don't misrepresent me as an excuse to bludgeon T, ok?

        No one told me I needed an excuse!  Hey!  I protest!

        Allright, who is the virtual lawyer around here? :)

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:43:54 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      IRA foiled twice
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

In the wee small hours of Saturday morning two policemen on regular
patrol in London stopped a lorry which looked a bit suspicious. On
being stopped the two men in it ran. One of the policemen investigated
the truck and found it to be a huge bomb - about a ton of explosive,
while the other made chase after the men. He caught up with them but
on accosting them got shot. Twice. After radioing for help, a cordon
around the area got one of the men.

The most likely destination for the bomb was the Lord Major's parade,
which took place in London on Saturday, and a bomb that size could
have caused massive damage and loss of life.

On Sunday a security man in the London Docklands saw a suspicious
looking lorry. On stopping it again the men ran for it. this lorry
turned out to be another massive bomb.

The worrying aspect to both these incidents is that there appears (to
us outsiders anyway) to have been no intelligence tip off, and the
attacks were foiled solely by vigilance and luck. It seems likely that
the IRA will attempt some sort of mainland "spectacular" in the run up
to Christmas.

Meanwhile commentators here have remarked that rather than sending a
peace envoy or whatever, the simplest way for America to stop the
terrorists' activities is to stop funding them ...

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:59:12 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Everything I do...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

jimbo:
>...I do for me.
>
>I hereby put the entire list on notice that every single political
>position I advocate, I advocate because I think that such is BEST
>for me.
>
>And... unless something real danged interesting or funny pops up
>here pretty soon, I'm gonna follow 'Liese into the great SET NOMAIL
>beyond.

So the Velection losers have gone off in a huff then, eh ?

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 08:34:26 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Cal Thomas's article

Did any of you read Cal Thomas's article in yesterday's
papers?

To me it was a revealing one.  He mentioned the push for
Jerry Falwell to revitalize (restart) the Moral Majority.
He said that that would be a mistake and that the masses
would further reject the religious right and even ridicule
it.

He then went on and said that the religious right has an
image problem.  He said -- and I am paraphrasing -- "we need
to look like more Mother Treasa (sp?) than Operation Rescue."

The interesting thing is that Cal THomas is blaming the defeat
on the appearance of the message not the message itself.  He
didn't say, "we should *act* more like mother Treasa" but rather
look *like* her.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:18:25 -0500
From:         Every Man <EVERYMAN@VCUVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      showers?

         Should gay high school students be prevented from taking
         Phys Ed?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:57:43 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Words
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>         Jonathon, I never said I would vote for the guy, or that I
> knew all of his positions. I don't. Your letter didn't help me in
> finding out his positions. He is a good speaker, and he does present
> himself well. And, since your mind is obviously biased, i wouldn't
> mind hearing from another Californian about Bruce. Oh, and assuming
> that I would decide he was too far right might be valid, but is
> certainly not a smart thing to write. Assuming is always a bad thing
> to do.
>
> Cousin It                                         cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
>            Special Productions Director and Engineer
> WBRS 100 FM, Waltham Ma.                   WBRS@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
> All Genre Music Programming            Free Live Music-4 times weekly
>

Okay, fair enough.  Let me put this this way, I developed an extreme
sense of disgust whenever I saw Bruce.  Immediately after the election,
I threw away all of my anti-Bruce stuff.  So therefore to address your
perfectly legitimate points accurately would either prove to be impossible
or too time-consuming.  Since I don't have the time, I'll just say that
I'm sorry that I can't defend my earlier statements because of the afore-
mentioned throwaway.  You may well be right (though I doubt it) about
Bruce's desire to put all social issues back to the states.

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