HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:32:26 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder...

In article <01GQYI658Q0I9OF8I9@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>,
8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (MIKE) says:
>
>Andy
>>this being Canada, burning of the US flag is not only tolerated, it's
>>occasionally encouraged:
>This act should not be encouraged no matter we you are.

You deleted the smiley, it was a joke based on someone elses comment

>
>I don't know if you watched the world series but you surely heard of the
>incident. How did you feel when the Colour guard carried the Canadian Flag
>upside-down. Another point is it not the socialist NDP government of Ontario

 ^^^made me feel the marines were somewhat overrated, we took it in good humor


>that brought forth a bill concerning the desecration of the flag. The only
>good thing they ever did.

No they didn't, there is no such law in Canada, it would be unconstitutional

Good things the NDP did: anti-scab legislation, legislation automatically
deducting alimony payments from the cheques of recalcitrant husbands,
extend family benefits to Gay partners, scrap the oath of allegiance to the
Queen in some instances, stand up to Mulroney, Put an environmentalist in
charge of Ontario Hydro, propose legislation to ensure minorities are
represented on juries, require police officers to file reports whenever they
draw there guns in public, appoint Susan Eng chair of the Police Services Board
Respond swiftly to riots following King verdict, extend full funding to
abortion clinics, appoint more women/minority judges, raise the minimum wage,
appoint a Lesbian to the Police Services Board, environmental bill of rights,
punish polluters, appoint Peter Herndorff to head TV Ontario,
>
>The flag is a symbol of a country, respected and honoured and loved by        .
>millions
>   How would you feel if one of the symbols that you respect were burned.

I wouldn't go out and try to undermine the principles the flag is supposed
to represent by amending the constitution. In any case, we have no oath of
allegiance, we don't put our hands over our hearts during the anthem or
take our hat off in the presence of the flag. It's just a piece of cloth,
a country that worships cloth over ideals has problems.

P.S. Social Democracy (what you call socialism) would do you folks some good
From: dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK ((Dunstan_Vavasour))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: can i be whitehouse cook? (enjoyable flippant subject spoilt
              by talking about international trade war)
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:47:22 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

Linda:
>Congratulations to the Tall Guys.
>
>Thanks to James for staying up late and counting all the Xs.
>
>so, anyhow.....can i be whitehouse cook???

And can I be custodian of the whitehouse wine cellar ?

On a serious note, if the USA goes ahead in imposing unilateral
tariffs on imports from Europe, it will affect both the whitehouse
cook and wine custodian.

>
>well,
>i must say, i was a little more excited about this election than i thought. my
>emotions have a way of surprising me....i'm always the last to know how i feel.
>anyway,
>as soon as jess went to bed i poured some port and sat down for the results.
[stuff deleted]

And it may well affect teh supply and price of port.

D.
From: 8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (MIKE)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:18:43 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

> I guess that you are more of an export on the economy.......that endorsed
Clinton's plan

The only people that are going to benefit under Clinton's plan are accountants
and tax lawyers.

--mike.....
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:57:56 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject: Re: gays in military (Canada)
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Regarding your last line...I DONT! Also, it is very sad to see the FGLCRB
even be considered...
--Steve
From: sbc3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SHAWN BRENDON CREWS)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: president hillary
Date: 9 Nov 92 02:11:50 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <01GQTY7GHUYQ9OEIJ9@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>, 8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMAS
TER.CA (MIKE) writes:
>Fred
>>I've seen several articles about Iraq buying nuclear weapons... note that this
>is happening on Mr. Bush's watch, and that the Clinton presidency doesn't begin
>until 1993.
>Well first of all it's still president Bush not Mr Bush. If Iraq is buying
>military and nuclear hardware from the soviet union it is in anticipation
>of 1993. Remember it is going to take time to train. He probably won't even
>take delivery until President-Elect Billiary get in the whitehouse.  I don't
>know if you heard or read Clinton's speach. He threatened possible hostile
>nation not to try and take advantage of this transition period. What he meant
>was don't try it because Bush is still president and he'll thump you again.
>
> A question: What do you want President Bush to do about it?
>
>-----mike...
>
CONGRATULATIONS ON A SUPERB POST!!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:44:00 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: bounced checks
              10 Nov 1992 11:19:00 EST from <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>

From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET

> ............................................  Many people in America
> could be arrested for doing what some of these congressmen did.
> Besides, why does the House need a bank of its own, at taxpayer
> expense?

Oh really, as in they broke a law.  Would you care telling us what
law they broke?

> -Paul

--KAT
From: CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET (todd pukanecz)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The Electoral College has more members than Congress
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:54:34 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              5 Nov 1992 10:54:38 -0800 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>Various "territories" participate in the primaries, such as Guam
>and Puerto Rico (?); I don't know whether or not they have electors.
>
The territories - Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and one other I
believe - get to vote in presidential elections.  This yeilds only one
electoral vote.  The votes are summed for all territories to yeild the
winner of the lone territorial electoral vote.
    todddddddddddd
>-andy

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "I figure I have the same
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   chance of winning the lottery
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    whether I play or not." - FL
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15:25:42 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      What a flat tax isn't

From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET

                    GIVE US A FLAT TAX !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
           [stuff deleted]

>Here is a fair proposal for a flat tax:

>  All income up to $12,000 -             not taxed
>  income from $12,000 to $20,000         5%
>  income from $20,000 to $50,000         8%
>  income from $50,000 to $75,000        12%
>  income from $75,000 to $200,000       14%
>  income over $200,000                  17%

What exactly does Paul think the words "flat tax" mean?

It is logically impossible to have a flat tax with 6 brackets.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: _IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:12:00 -0400
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: question for the history Czar

Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:19:43 -0500
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
>
>Which of the two major parties was originally associated most closely with
>a protective tariff?  I seem to recall reading somewhere that in the post
>1865 era, it was mostly Republicans.  My poor fuzzy memory tells me that
>there's something about whether you're a manufacturer or farmer that
>determines whether you like tariffs or not, but I'm way out of my league.

        Yes, in the period after the end of Reconstruction (notice how he
skillfully avoids wasting his one annual reference to the American -- thanks,
Dunstan -- Civil War by using Reconstruction as his chronological landmark),
Republicans were frequently associated with protective tariffs.  American
farmers suffered under these tariffs for two reasons.  First, they raised the
price of manufactured goods between 33% and 60% on the average.  Second, they
sparked reciprocal tariff barriers which prevented American agriculture from
penetrating foreign markets.  Although not as important as the issue of "free
silver," tariffs would form a plank in the platform of the nascent Populist
Party in the 1890s.

        Farmers did not always oppose tariffs, however.  Hawley-Smoot
(1930, Paul) sought to "help" farmers by raising protective tariffs on
seventy-five farm products from an average of 26% (from a tariff implemented in
1922) to a new high of 50%.

        The determing factor of whether you support or oppose tariffs, then,
seems to be whether or not you are directly protected.

Mike "dates, schmates" McCarthy
From: E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET (Andrew Allen)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Justice
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:45:25 GMT
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

>>> Who is J. Kilpatrick? Just wondering.

>>He is a newspaper columnist, somewhat on the conservative side.

>       *She* is former US ambassador to the UN, and currently speaks/writes on
>generally conservative issues.

Not to be too picky, but I think that this is a prime example of conservative
error...

Brett, you're thinking of J. Kirkpatrick, former ambassador to the UN
(appointed by Reagan) and one of the *last* people I would expect to
find on Clinton's list.


>       A very good choice for VP, but not for the SC.

As long as "VP" stands for "Vicious Primate" that's fine, I agree that
she would be a poor choice for the Supremes.

>Brett'

-other Andy
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:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 16:56:24 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      love grows where my rosemary goes, and nobody knows like me

hi there!  congratulations to mr. president johnson (and i would like,
in one little bitty spate of vitriol here to point out just how well
this country has done with presidents named johnson) and mr. vice-
president olson (so, gary, when am i gonna see some of this vice?).
the vax here has been down all day, so i just now am able to post.
lotta mail.  aaaauuuuugggghhh.
i can tell you that gerry sikorski lost his seat in the house due to the
bad check thing, to whomever it was who asked.  rod grams, a former
tv anchor ("...it all started at a little 5000 watt station in fresno, californi
   a...."), ousted him pretty easily.

i myself am ambivalent about the outcome of the national election.  don't
quite know how to feel.  i know that i felt an extraordinary sense of
empowerment (note that handy-dandy grad school word, there) when they handed
me my ballot.  not so much when they counted them, though...they didn't even
report how many votes marrou got (except in dixville notch, of course).

whatever.  so, how are things with you all?  cold, here.
when do y'all think they're gonna indict neil bush, now that his pa-pah is
out of options for protecting him?

toodle-oooo and cheeri-eh, see you all tomorrow.
(and a big thanks to james for the election stuff...and to andy in canada,
no, your being an air sign is fine, it's just that i am way busy but
will write as soon as i have a minute to think!  :-)

anneliese.
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Poor losers!
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:29:45 GMT
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
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>        Lincoln won by a majority in the states where his name did
>>appear.  So you attempt a better example than Lincoln in 1860 when
>>searching for another minority president.
>
>OK - here goes,
>
>1968  Nixon         43.42%
>1960  Kennedy       49.72%
>1948  Truman        49.51%
>1916  Wilson        49.24%
>1912  Wilson        41.84%
>1892  Cleveland     46.05%
>1888  Cleveland     48.62%  The other guy (TM) one this one.  Are these his
				numbers?
>1884  Cleveland     48.50%
>1880  Garfield      48.28%
>1876  Hayes         47.95%  (though Tilden got 50.97%)
>1860  Lincoln       39.82%
>1856  Buchanan      45.28%   (Boy, Pat must really be old!  ;-)   )
>1848  Taylor        47.28%
>1844  Polk          49.54%
>
>Is this sufficient to indicate that this is not a particularly uncommon
>phenomenon?  BTW, the percentages are reflective of _popular_ vote.
>
>Source: _Guide to US Elections_, Congressional Quarterly.  1985.

	Minority candidates win all the time in parliamentary systems.  Even
ones who come in second/third/etc. and form a coalition.

>Another btw,  that Reagan MANDATE in 1980 was ushered in on
>drum roll . . .    50.1%  of the popular vote!  Hey you know
>what if just .2% of those who voted had voted against Reagan,
>*Reagan* would have been elected!!  Mirabile Dictu!

	Yeah, but Carter only got 43%, so it'd take a lot more than .2%.
(Anderson got 6.6%).

Brett'
From: KIS100F@SMSVMA.BITNET (Kip Shaw)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Deleted Emails
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:06:34 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

All my emails pertaining to the Politics discussion group have gotten
accidentally deleted, so unable to reply directly to replies about the
train-wreck problem.
But I was able to read the messages once.

Kerry: Thanks and yes, the problem is associated with the legendary Neumann.
       I may have stated the problem somewhat inaccurately though while
       trying to "politicize" it.
       It was good to hear about Neumann again.
       His only well-known political comment (that I am aware of) is this:
       Von Neumann commented to Stan Ulam about Robert Oppenheimer (all three
       of course were in Los Alamos..):
       Some people admit the guilt in order to claim credit for the sin.



KAD: The comments were interesting.
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: gays in military (Canada)
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:26:13 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Robert H:
I read a brief description of the Colorado initiative in the Chronicle of
Higher Ed.  As I recall, the measure prevents the passage of legislation
that would prevent discrimination against homosexuals.  Sort of an anti-
anti-discrimination law.  Or something.

Speaking of gays (and lesbians) in the military:  I thought I heard
something somewhere about Clinton ending the ban on homosexuals in the
military through executive order.  Is that how it works?  Or does it
require legislation?

And anyone who wants to try to explain executive orders to me (how do they
work, what sorts of things are covered by them, and so forth) is more than
welcome to!

Thanks,
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 11:51:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: The Draft Dodger, Adulterer, & Commie Sympathizer
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt380329@drew.edu>, The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGH
   T.EDU> writes:
> ...
>
>       Clinton lied about Tsongas' position on Social Security and programs
> for older Americans.  Not just fudged the truth, either, but a complete 180
> degree reversal.  In a state with the amount of retired people, that kind of a
> lie can be quite damaging.  It's not "politics".
>       But there seems to be a double standard for Democrats.
>
> Brett'
>
I'm one of those who will state the obvious that Clinton has his flaws
(I voted against him for Tsongas in the primary) and am annoyed at
people who try to gloss over them.  But, the above is politics, it
just is (somewhat) crooked, but both sides did this.  The point is the
aggravating use of ad hominem attacks, the "he's a lousy leader"
instead of saying something about Bush's ability to run. Apparently
policy doesn't matter.  People didn't agree with much of Reagan's
policies (nor often knew them); people liked Reagan and Bush for their
'leadership', obviously giving them license to malign candidates
wives.  Did we hear about Bush's family over and over again?
Republicans have a double standard too. I really like his "I made a
mistake in accepting Congress forcing me to raise taxes"  Yeah, right.
Neither side should be that smug, but nor shouldn't they take things
in context.

  -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:50:24 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Who gained what in the 1980s

>        I'm a bit confused about what these figures actually say. ...
>If so, why is there no mention of change in total wealth?

>By my recollection, this latter measure indicates a much more
>drastic concentration of wealth in the hands of the upper classes (I will have
>to find that data). ...  A 23% change in net worth for one whose income
>is >100k is much greater than a 19% gain for those with income less than 25k.
>As a matter of fact, these figures do not refute the claim that, of total
>wealth in the economy, the 1980s saw a greater _concentration_ in the hands of
>the wealthiest Americans.

This gets back to the earlier distinction between equality and improvement.

Some people prefer equality to improvement while others prefer
improvement to equality.  The former look at concentrations of wealth
while the latter look at how well off the poor are regardless of what
the rich have.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:20:14 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Modest Request
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>I've been skimming recently, and it's become obvious to me that
>I have not been able to sort out the new cast of characters. I think I
>know who Paul is now. I don't know who Brett' is. It's not Brett
>Feinstein, is it?
>
	Nope.  Brett Kottmann.  29.  Married.  Software Engineer by trade,
Historian by night :).  Ohio State 81-5, Wright State 86-89.  BA History, MS
Computer Science (as soon as I get around to finishing the thesis :).

>Here's my problem.
>I don't want to embarass myself. It is perfectly clear that some
>new morons have signed on, but also that not all the newcomers
>are morons.

	I would guess that which category I fall into depends on who you ask
:).

>If you have signed on recently, please send something in the next couple
>of days that clearly indicates your intelligence. If you are one of the
>morons, send something moronic. If you are not a moron, send something
>intelligent.

	My IQ?  I'll be posting part 1 of "Look Back in Anger", a retrospect on
the 80s and the current misconceptions in a few days.  That will probably be
representative.

Brett'
aka Stupendous Man on Usenet.  (From Calvin and Hobbes, for those without
access to US comics.)
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: return path looks okay...maybe i should have used some
              shower-to-shower
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:23:09 GMT
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
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU


	*whew* that's what that smell is.
:D

>>well, that last message i sent seems to have gone where it was supposed to go.
>>i wanted to talk a little bit about gays and lesbians and the armed forces
>>(those of you preparing to ask me about elvis costello can just
>>shut up right now).  i would like to point out that if one reads one's
>>homer (or thucydides), one will discover that the ancient greeks were highly
>>in favor of the practice of conscripting gay lovers into their military
>>ranks.  one tends to fight a bit more fiercely when there exists the
>>possibility that one's lover might be killed due to your own inaction
>>(although this could backfire.  i can think of a couple of ex-es that i
>>would probably not exactly jump on a grenade for).
>>who cares?  what does one's sexual preference have to do with this issue?

	I think this is the reason the military *didn't* want females in the
army: too many men would be taking too many foolish risks to
protect/impress/etc the women.  Which would endanger the
operation/personnel/etc.
	At least, that was the excuse.  Israel and the XSSR didn't seem to have
any problems.  There are stories of women being better fighters for the Soviets
in WWII.  I guess when you threaten the children, the mothers will get pretty
upset....

	Now, as far as sexual preference goes, it has no bearing whatsoever.
It's simply prejudice and society.  It's slowly changing, though.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 15:01:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: over population

Robert:

Moses, Paul and Jesus, huh?  Last time I checked, the Bible was written By
people of faith For people of faith - it is not a "faith-proover".

But for the sake of argument, let's take a look at this.  We hear SO much about
what the Bible says about this and that - let's take your three examples.

What are Moses, Paul and Jesus alleged to have said about abortion?  I say
alleged since the Bible is not a verbatim historical record of recorded
conversations - it is the sum of a people's oral faith/history, and recorded
to reflect that faith.  I do not grant it "historical
                                                        document" status. But,
let's see what you have to say.  I'll dust off my copy and we'll get back to
each other.

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU