HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Uncl: abortion ruling
Date: 22 Jan 1993 15:02 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <9301201445.AA27637@cuthbert.bashstreet>,    
     Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK> writes...
>My point was how objectionable it is
>to judge somebody's likely quality of life and make a judgement
>whether it would be kinder for them not to live. If you attempt to use
>this as justification for abortion, why not use it to justify
>infanticide ?

In some parts of the law, this is a valid point.  For example, while "wrongful
death" torts are commonplace, courts have refused to recognize "wrongful life",
on the grounds that being born with a disability or severe illness is more
valuable than not being born at all.  The parents, on the other hand, are
usually allowed to sue for "wrongful birth", including the emotional stress of
having an unexpected or disabled child.  (In some states, wrongful birth in
cludes family planning sterilization failures.)

On the other hand, in constitutional law, it's a different story.  The usual
question is the balancing of the rights of a person whose legal existence is
undisputed (the pregnant woman) with rights of a disputed legal entity (the
fetus).  U.S. courts generally favor the woman, with increasing limitations. 
Infanticide cases differ in that the legal existence of the child is now
certain.

							Dan, ad nauseum
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:01:39 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Clinton and JFK
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >
> >I think it means that Bill is
> >hoping for a piece of Madonna.
> >
> >                              -Tim
>
>         She only has eyes for Chelsea.
>
> Brett'
>

Brett...  The Brett-meister...  Brett-o-rama...  Writing the
messages... Quoting SNL [Saturday Night Live]...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:39:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      heyheyjayjay

welcome back! you and kerry s. all in one week....must be like some sort of
cosmic shift or movement or something....maybe shirley mclain can explain....

anyway, things are like they were when i first signed up. kinda cool.

also anyway, dearest darling jay (missy ninar kerry...don't worry, that's a
"motherly" dearest darling, not a sexy dearest darling), glad to have you
back and i disagree w/everything you said.

gotta go work now...

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:10:36 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Further comments on Iraq ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Both yesterday and today, US planes fired upon Iraqi radar stations for
>the "crime" of turning on their radar. It seems to me that the US is
>over-reacting to what I believe is a legitimate activity - to track possibly
>hostile planes over Iraqi sovereign territory. Had Iraq fired on the planes,
>my reaction might be much different. But, I believe the Iraqis are adhering
>to the letter of their "ceasefire," and I think that the US is currently
>exceeding its brief in firing on Iraqi radar. VMS

        It's more than simply hitting the "on" button.  Locking onto a plane is
universally recognized as a hostile move, and the last thing you do before you
fire a missile.

        It is possible to have radar turned on, but not locking onto aircraft.

Brett'
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Gays in the military
Date: 28 Jan 1993 09:36 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

Having read the Sultan's comments, I make the most appropriate response.

*Yawn*

							Dan, ad nauseum 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:27:33 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Re:Re:Monday musings

Yay, Tim!

Finally, something that makes sense on this list!

A UN resolution that is vetoed, and therefore does not become a resolution,
IS NOT LAW, no matter WHO vetoed it! (even the US)

YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think we've got it!

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:25:10 -0500
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Business Optimism
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

        Now why didn't Bush think of that when he included those in the
military (the overseas guys REALLY help out the economy, you know...)?
                Travlr
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:27:22 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: new SC ruling

KAT says:
>But the Supremes did not rule in case of Herrera only, rather
>ruled in all cases.

and then again, same post:
>Maybe this case IS fishy but the Supreme Court ruled for all
>cases.

  Presumably, then, KAT has read the decision?

  It was my understanding (based on an NPR report) that
in the opinions filed by one or more of the justices,
they stated that they did not consider this ruling to
be as broad as KAT twice suggests, and that they might
rule differently on other cases.

  I haven't read the decision, though, and can only report
what NPR revealed.  (The network info-tainment explained
"the supreme court ruled today that death row prisoners did
not have the right to an appeal even if new evidence to prove
their innocence is uncovered.  Justice xxx said in dissent
'this is murder.' "  Nothing like network coverage of the
news.)

                            -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:01:46 -0500
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject:      Re: Ronald Reagan lives on
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

        Hey, doncha get it, they'll never admit a litmus test ever EXISTED,
let alone say it was wrong...   It's only bad when the other guy does it.

                                Travlr
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:10:46 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      women seeking abortions

I'm just wondering....

In determining "protected class" when faced with offensive behavior,
is there any relevance to whether or not persons in the
protected class are *engaged in* the offensive behavior?  (i.e.,
is it necessary that the oppressive agency be comprised exclusively
of people not included in the "noun" aspect of the protected class?)

If so, "women-seeking-abortions" can no more be a protected class
than "women-members-of-the-press," "women-attempting-to-pray"
[which of course, in this case, would set up a fascinating protected
class versus protected class situation] or "women-petitioning-
the-government-for-redress-of-grievances."

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:28:35 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Playing House
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>On Thu, 28 Jan 1993 12:44:50 -0500 Jason Briggs Cormier said:
>>
>>Ok, maybe I am missing something here that I should be getting,
>>but what residence did they pick?
>>
>>jbc
>
>They picked Kennebunkport.  Surprise, surprise.
>
>--KAT

        I must have missed something.  Picked Kennebunkport for what?  To live?

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:18:58 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Organization: Institute of Computer Science, Jagellonian University Cracow
Subject:      definition of fascism
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU" at Jan 22, 93 11:45 pm

MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU pisze:
>>
>>         You're BOTH wrong... In your definitions of Facisim that is.

BOTH who? I agree with your definition.

>> Facisim is simply
>> the sacrifice of the person, the individual, to the state.  While it is
>> true that it does take quite a charismatic person to put this across to the
>> public, that is not the ultimate engine of the doctrine.  Read some
>> Mussolini sometime, it might (although not being very palatable) shed
>> some light on this subject for you.
>>                                                                 Travlr
>>
But you agree IL DUCE played a significant role in implementing the doctrine.
Perhaps he was only a tool, not an engine.


Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:55:31 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject: Re: Nanny and Zoe

Hi, y'all:
Not to beat a dead horse or anything . . . but Steve R. wrote (among other
good stuff):

>Neither example is particularly apt, although Frank's situation
>is closer.  I didn't have an example in mind.  What I was thinking
>was that since it was a *child care* issue, the senator's found
>that line of questioning unduly fascinating.  Since Baird
>admitted wrongdoing at the outset, the continued line of questioning
>was, for the most part, redundant.

Now, as I think I've said before, I'm interested in this situation mostly
because I'm very curious about the reasons why John and Jane Q. Public got
in such a huff over this *particular* nomination.  The "child care" thing,
it seems to me, offers two possibilities -- both of which I've seen and
heard in various places.  The first is that it offers some sort of
mitigating circumstance:  "everyone knows child care is hard to find, so we
should bear that in mind" etc.  I personally don't buy it.

The second is that it offers (as Steve has suggested) a partial explanation
for why people got so angry.  My reading, which parallels Steve's, I think,
is "child care is supposed to be a woman's business -- how could a mother
not be informed about what was going on" etc.   That's where I see the
roots of the fascination.  Had she been male, folks might have thought
"well, his wife screwed up -- and maybe we shouldn't confirm him."

The few minutes of hearings I watched featured a question along those lines
by Carol Mosely-Braun.  After determining precisely how household
responsibilities are divided in Baird's home, she said something to the
effect of "so what you're saying is that this was an *allocation*, not *
abrogation* of responsibility."  And that might be precisely what folks
couldn't understand.

I dunno.  I'm going to be very interested to see how the next nomination
pans out.  And I'm also curious to see how the deal with revoking the ban
on gays in the military plays out.  Will we see a massive public outcry
against congresscritters and military types who oppose Clinton's plan?
That is, will the folks who cried "foul" over Baird (because Clinton was
breaking a promise of some sort) do the same on this issue?

I don't know if that makes any sense -- I've got to teach the evolution of
dermal bone in five minutes, and am consequently a bit distracted :)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:50:22 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gennifer says:
              21 Jan 1993 14:28:07 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:28:07 -0400 The Integral Differential said:

Ok, let's see.....are we gonna talk at the gut-level or at the
beyond a reasonable doubt level?

My gutt feeling is that Clinton DID have something going on with
Ms. Flowers but the extent of it, I don't know.

>Did you actually read the transcripts?  Evidently not, but then hardly anyone
>published them.  Here's an excerpt that was published in The Washington Times
>on January 28, 1992:

I think Washington TImes is not of the most reliable newspapers
but I guess it has to do for now.  BTW, the reason papers like
Washington Post or LA Times did not go with the content of the
tape (if indeed they didn't) is not that they are pro-Clinton
but that they were not sure about the authenticity of the WHOLE
tape.

[The transcript of the tape deleted]

Now, I told you about my gut feeling.  But based on evidence, I am
not really sure if the tape conclusively proves anything even if it
was not doctored.

>Clinton never denied that it was him on the tape, and voice analysts have
>confirmed that it is his voice.  Clinton even apologized to Mario Cuomo for
>the remarks made about him.  Everyone just said that it's none of our business
>who Clinton screws, and that we have to "focus on the issues."  But even if you
But Clinton did not *admit* anything either (except the Mario
reference and that it was basically him on the tape).  And many
tape-analysts said that the tape had been "doctored"

>Forwarded by Brett'

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: in::"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:14:01 -0500
From:         "Chris A. Sloffer" <SLOFFER_CHRIS_A@LILLY.COM>
Subject: Re: broader question
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.bitnet>

>Hi again.
>Joe brought up a good point, I think, about the kinds of standards to which
>we should hold appointees.  I was wondering -- do y'all have any
>suggestions for a set of standards against which we can judge appointees?
>That is, what kinds of activities should be dismissed, what kinds should
>serve as grounds for immediate disqualification, etc.?  Are some positions
>more "sensitive" than others, so those standards should be more stringent?
>What do y'all think?

I'm not sure of a complete set of standards, but at the top of the list must
be no flagrant vioation of the laws of the country.  Yes, some laws may be
silly to some, but they are still the laws, and as long as they are people
should be held to them.

>Kerry

Chris
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Inaugural
Date: 22 Jan 1993 14:48 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <Pine.3.05.9301192020.U8551-8100000@grits>,    
     Ude Eko <udeeko@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU> writes...
>Someone told me
>today that today [Jan. 19] is "the last free day in America".  What are your
>thoughts on this subject, for me to inform him about??

As a liberal Democrat, I think I disagree.

						    Dan, ad nauseum	
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:27:58 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Subject:      Re: Clinton and JFK

>JFK's call of sacrifice and service to the youth of America brought many
>people into public life, most of them committed to the ideal of public
>service for the rest of their lives.  Clinton is one of them.

We don't judge them by that, but by what they accomplished....  One of
the problems with them is that they don't understand that.

>Whatever we may deconstruct of JFK's history, it still remains that he was
>an enormous positive influence on millions of people during and after his
>lifetime.

"positive"?

-andy
--
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The good old days
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:54:14 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>I'm sorry but half a day in office is too soon to start bitchin' about
>what hasn't been accomplished. Also, as stated in the inaugrual address,
>a great deal of what is accomplished will depend on the willingness of
>joe/jane average american to become involved and make a difference. If
>you want change work for it, don't wimper about it.
>
>fred

        That's a nice escape hatch also:

        "The economy didn't improve because you were unwilling to accept higher
taxes, more regulations, more handouts to the poor, more unemployed, more
inflation, less productivity, ...
        Race relations didn't improve because you were unwilling to accept
thought crimes, reverse discrimination, non-merit promotions, ...
        Foreign relations didn't improve because you were unwilling to support
my boycott of OPEC over that tanker spill, my boycott of Mexico beceause of
their low taxes, lower wages, and booming economy, my boycott of ..."

        --William Jefferson Clinton, blaming the nation for his hideous first
term during the 1996 New Hampshire primary.

Brett'
(Tongue in cheek, of course.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 10:38:35 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Shortest Presidency
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>My daughter came up with a question about the shortest presidency that
>perhaps someone here has an answer to.  When she mentioned it, I seemed
>to remember reading in some article about political oddities a discussion
>about the possibility of someone being president for a few hours between
>the end of the term of one president and the inauguration of another,
>ie either the vice president or the speaker of the House technically
>being president for a very brief period.
>
>Does anyone recall anything like that ever happening?

        One president didn't want to assume the office on a Sunday, so (I
believe) the speaker assumed the caretaker position until Monday morning.

        The shortest "actual" presidency was when one of our (Ohio's)
illustrious presidents decided to do the inauguration thing improperly dressed
(in a speech lasting 3 hours), caught pnemonia, and died a couple of weeks
later.

        Names?  Hey, I'm just military history. :)

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:45:47 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re:
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Unsub Politics-l Ude Eko
>

I just love it when people send the UNSUBSCRIBE to the list and not
to the listserv.  Like they're trying to tell everyone on the list
something....?

    ...<laugh>...  Try, but we'll find you, Ude... and we'll secretly
subscribe you back on...


  (You know, this sleep deprivation experiment isn't going so well.)

  STAN
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 10:55:25 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics

T;

Heh heh.  Very cute.  John Hanson.  First *actual* president of the
U.S. (under the Articles of Confederation).  17..81?  Maybe -2.  My
early dates aren't that good (no untoward personal comments, please. :-) ).

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:21:16 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military [Jay]
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> This whole discussion is getting bizarre.

"When the the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." -HST

> Think about this (taking it to an even more bizarre level).

(Stuff deleted about the "behavior" of homosexuals and women)

Kerry, I personally do not buy that. Some of the meanest
people I know are women.

> And we have not even *touched* upon the very high degree of *extra*
> personal danger a sodomite (to be behaviorally accurate) puts him/herself
> in by offering to engage in combat with a foreign enemy!

(Kerry touching upon the degree of extra danger homosexuals in the
military would work under DELETED)

However, unless some hardcore Queer Nation member with a pink
triangle tattooed on hir (the PC 3rd person personal article),
the enemy would not know. Last time I heard, no one in a combat
zone (actual shooting area) wears insignia so snipers can't blow
away the officers & leave the soldiers lost. If this is true, I
cannot believe personal insignia (like most things that would
identify a homosexual) would be allowed, either.

> --NINAR Kerry

From the Desk of Dave,
Apparatchik of Dictionaries
  (and conspiracy theorist)
(aka Larva, Trip Buster, Dave Zero, Didactic Dave)
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU