HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:39:37 GMT
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: new tariffs
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

Fred:
>Does anybody know who is responsible for introducing the proposed 200%
>tariff on certain european goods such as wine, cheese, etc? I don't see
>how this can possible make our farmers more competitive. Just when many
>are seeing a bumper crop, the prices are going down the tubes. I think
>we will see a lot of retaliation if we proceed with this policy.

The tariffs are not being introduced for 30 days, but the USA has
started the procedures. I believe that the USA are not bluffing, and
have had enough of the EC heel dragging over subsidies. IMHO there are
strong forces in favour of prrotectionism in many corners of the USA,
and once tariffs are imposed it could be very difficult to put the
genie back in the bottle.

The chief EC negotiator has quit, claiming that his position was being
undermined by interference by the European Commission. M. Delors was
summoned to Downing Street over the weekend where he is said to have
received a carpetting from major, and been told to find a solution
PDQ.

The stakes are very high, and to my mind it is clear that the main
culprits are the French. It is not clear whether the EC could conclude
deal on majority voting or whether the French have a power of veto.
The French approach to the US action is to propose EC tariffs on US
imports - the worst possible response.

To the credit of the USA, the goods they have picked for tariffs cause
the maximum pain to France, and the minimum elsewhere.

I gravely fear the outcome. To my US readers, make sure your wine
cellars are well stocked. I wouldn't try to stockpile Camambert,
though.

Dunstan
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: right v left
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:08:10 GMT

>>>Sure.  The way I was taught, the left-right spectrum runs like this:
>>>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>|           |            |          |                              |
>>>Communism  Socialism   Democrats  Republicans                    Nazism
>>>

Does anyone have a handy copy of the libertarian 'smallest political
quiz' with the so-called 'Nolan Chart' or whatever it is called?

--Jimbo


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:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:03:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Oliver North for Senate
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Andrew  MacRae says that Bush "appears to be guilty of simplye perjury"
because he lied when he said that he didn't know that the arms for hostages
deal was being funneled to the the Contras.  I guess my concern is that if
it is true that Bush knew about the funneling of money into the Contras then
he was not only guilty of perjury but was an accomplice to the crime.  At
least that is how _my_ understanding of the law works.  Anyone else have
opinions on this?

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Minority President?
Date: 12 Nov 1992 02:44:08 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <POLITICS%92111117185608@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>,         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU writes:
> If Perot were not in the race, most of the Perot supporters would have
> voted for President Bush.

Sorry, but according to the Gallup exit polls that is simply not true.
They found that there was an almost even split between those who would
have voted for Clinton and those who would have voted for Bush.  Their
conclusion was that Bush would have tightened the race by perhaps one
percentage point at the most.  If you like, I can dig up the reference,
it was in the San Jose Mercury News post election special edition.  If
you want me to go to all that trouble though (the paper is somewhere in
the garage, otherwise known as the Black Hole of Fremont) I will have
to ask you to please cite *your* reference.

On the question of the acuracy of exit polls, isn't amazing just *how*
acurate they are?  Rarely are they off more than one percentage point.
A friend of mine explains that this is because no one actually counts the
votes anymore.  They just report what the exit polls have found with just
a slight fudge factor.

						Andrew MacRae
						
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:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:00:00 EST
From:         DFIELD1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject: Re: gays in military (Canada)

>Also, it is very sad to see the FGLCRB (Federal Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights
>Bill) even being considered...
>
>--Steve

WHY????????

Derrick Field
dfield1@ithaca
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: "President Clinton"
Date: 5 Nov 92 03:14:30 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <POLITICS%92110411420623@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, R3EJD@AKRONVM.B
ITNET (Evelyn Duncan) writes:
>On Wed, 4 Nov 1992 10:25:12 CST <erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU> said:
>>If Hillary becomes President, I expect mass numbers of Americans flocking
>>to Canada or other countries. Also, neither Hillary nor Chelsea even look
>>very pretty.
>
>What does "looking pretty" have to do with being the President?  It's
>not as if being a President is like being a model.
>
>Evelyn Duncan
>
That is definitely not true.  Clinton is no MODEL for any intelligent
American.  I would disown any child of mine who wants to be ike him.
                                    Jayce
From: R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET (Evelyn Duncan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: love grows where my rosemary goes and nobody knows like me
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:36:59 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Linda,
  Thank you for becoming White House Chef.
  Anything with garlic will have to be excluded because I'll be bringing
a few friends along, and they can't abide garlic.

Evelyn
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: President Bush
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:24:58 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

Please allow me to thank you Mr. President as you have served your country
with honor and dignity.  I sincerely appreciate all that you have done for
your beloved nation, even if it turns its back on you these days.  I know that
you've done all that you can to help this country by adhereing to your beliefs
and not selling out just to win a few votes.  I have one more favor to ask of
you, sir, would you please reassure the rest of the world that the United
States will remain mostly intact.  I know that it may be a difficult thing to
say, you may not even be able to say it, but our country will continue to be
the greatest this world has ever seen.  I do not know the extreme pressure you
have been under the last year or so, if I were you I may even welcome this
rest.  However, I know that you have too big of a heart and want to help our
country to the end.  I will miss you, I had faith in you, and I hope you won't
disappear from the public view.
                                    Thank You,
                                        Jason S. Euculano
P.S.  Is James Baker going to run in 1996?  I hope so.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:29:20 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Those Fascinatin' Counterfactuals

>From:         "(Brent Irvine)" <irvine@UXH.CSO.UIUC.EDU>

>If Bush were to get all of Perot's votes, he would have won.

If Perot were to get all of Bush's votes, he would have won.

If Lyndon Larouche had gotten all of Clinton's votes, he would have won.

Amazing, huh? Makes you really stop and think.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:38:03 CST
From:         Kip Shaw <KIS100F@SMSVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      Political Email Gridlock

My apolitical computer accepts an upper limit of only 50 emails or so
before gridlocking out.
I am able to read the emails but unable to delete any of them unless
the entire 50 emails or so are collectively annihilated by a "discard"
command, after which truce is achieved and gridlock is unlocked.

In practical terms, I am unable to directly respond to any of the
emails from the politics discussion group.
Sometimes, I am able to post direct messages.
But I have been reading the very interesting messages by Kerry, Kat and
everyone.

Regards.
From: U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU (rufus t. firefly)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:07:00 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

************

>Re your post about Gandhi...It does not remind me of the illustrious Pat B.
Rather, it reminds me of some needed reforms in Christianity. However, that
does NOT invalidate the relgion as a whole. It's sad that he turned away from
the religion for that reason . . . especially when one of the main goals of
Christianity is inclusiveness.
--Steve
************

  doesn't the bible say something to the effect of "by their fruits
ye shall know them"? if the fruits of xtianity are things like the
endless persecutions, mass murders, and violent attacks on anything
other than blind obedience, then i why should i waste time even
considering it, let alone trying it?

rtf (with apologies for getting into theology on this list)
From: E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET (Steve Rafferty)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Banking, Schmanking, Wanking
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:51:14 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
X-VMS-Cc: E7L8RAF
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

OK - this is getting a bit tiresome, IMHO.

I have never ever bounced a check.  Neither have I ever required that the
overdraft protection I have arranged be implemented.  Thank you, thank you,
I am a saint among men.

If I found a bank willing to extend the courtesy of covering my *temporarily*
bad checks without penalizing me in any way, I would, knowing that I would
cover all funds outlayed forr me, probably be less careful in keeping track
of my checkbook.  Have I been irresponsible?  I don't think so; you might.
C'est la guerre. (On Fridays, that's "Say Lager"  ;-)  )

If some of the money "loaned" to our congresscreeps was used improperly
or if some tax provision was violated, somehow, let's talk about those
individual cases and whether they were illegal and whether the perpetrators
should be prosecuted.

If we are just mad that these bozos set themselves up a dandy little perq
in terms of their banking, why aren't we equally outraged at their use
of limousines, and other such perqs.

Let's agree that this is a matter of perspective.  If the "scandal"
upsets you, vote the bastard out.  If not, jus' do whatcha feel.  If it's
criminal, do whatever you can do to bring about prosecution, conviction
and incarceration.

Steve R.

ps - Friendly type warning:  When you're right about something, and the
ps - the argument goes a little weird, and then you say something mean or
     (uncleverly) sarcastic, you don't sound so right anymore.  ;-)


Vote Y's Guys  December 1992
1-800-4NO-GOVT
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, 6 Nov 1992 13:55:37 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      is there anybody out there?

i have been sending all sorts of stuff to all sorts of people with no
reply forthcoming.  maybe you all just don't like me, or read what i write,
but...is anything getting through?  on the off-chance that this gets anyplace,
i will reiterate todddddddd's point to shawn that all-caps is not
really necessary, and is basically kinda annoying.

happy motoring.
anneliese.
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, 9 Nov 1992 14:35:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Churches and Tax Exempt Status
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

>I'll be interested to see if you find anything to grill in this:
>
>The 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (1913)
>
>      The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on
>      incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment
>      among the several States, and without regard to any census
>      or enumeration.
>
>Shucks.
>
>Jamie

Okay.  Never mind.

*sigh*

--Julie
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:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:35:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      I'm sorry!!!!!!!!!
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

I was wrong and I apologize.

I recently responded to a message that I believed was offensive
becuase he was calling me history czar.  I've been told that the
comment was not directed at me, but at someone who is known as the
History czar.  I was unaware of the fact.

So, I apologize for my remarks

-Paul
See, Republicans can admit mistakes.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:31:00 EST
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject: Re: Fire! vs. There may be a fire!

>>Any deep thoughts perhaps?
Yes! What was the name of the movie?
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: America Has Spoken
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:21:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"


        Why is it that every few months we get a fresh crop of junior-nazis
on this list?  Jayce and Steve are just the newest.  Carl and Robert have
shown that you can be on the right and also be rational.

                                                Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:08:31 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: A Moronic Joke!
              11 Nov 1992 16:53:03 -0500 from <STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU>

From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU

> KAT:

> The joke is that you believe your IQ is higher than others because
> you disagree with their statements.  ...

Absolutely wrong!  I disagree with William F. Buckley, George Will,
Antonin Scalia, George Bush, John Sununu, Bob Novak, etc., but I
also believe they are all smart people.  Some of my best friends
are those that I disagree with.  I have four lunch partners; all
four are solid conservatives.  In fact, if I enter a party and see
two equally pleasant friends of mine, I would join the one that
I disagree most.  It is boring to have people with whom you agree
with around you.  There are some guys on this list that I almost always
agree with.  I do a lot of correspondence with one of them.  Guess
what, most of our correspondence is around topics that we disagree
with.  There was a guy called Jay Steven Sultan (God rest his
virtual soul) on this list.  I disagreed with him 90% of the times,
I never called his intelligence in question, in fact quite the
contrary I thought he was a reasonably intelligent man.

I hope you realize your theory that I question the IQ of these
guys ONLY because I disagree with their views is rather incorrect.

> Rich Dase pony%"stk1236vax003.stockton.edu"

--KAT
From: JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Subject Headers
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:26:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Another minor point:

More often than not, I see a subject header which has nothing to do with
the post at hand.  It would be really nice to see subject headers which
actually have some relationship to the cotents of the post.  It's not
that difficult to change a subject header and it will really make it
a lot easier for all of us to follow lines of discussion.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 10:45:42 MST
From:         "(Roger)" <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      I don't want a pickle
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

I happened to have on C-SPAN Monday night and caught the "welcome home"
rally for Bush, just before he went to his home (apartment?).

On stage, introducing each other were (please excuse spellings):

Bob Hope (of course)             Charlton Heston (of course)
Naomi Judd                       Larry Gatlin
Ted Williams (baseball)          Mary Lou Retton
Ricky Skaggs
                                               and others I can't remember.

Cher supported and voted for Perot.
                                                  ---roger

By the way....this morning's paper says one of Bush's 1,000 points of light
has been given to Arlo Guthrie, that pot smokin', draft dodgin', guitar
plucker.  What's the world comin' to???
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: sbc3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SHAWN BRENDON CREWS)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: APOLOGY TO EVERYONE!!!!!
Date: 9 Nov 92 02:47:58 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

To all of the people who responded to my anti-Clinton message:

    I am sorry that I offended you.  I was just very upset and meant nothing
    by my comment.  It was the first election in which I got to vote, and I
    wanted "my" candidates to win so much, that I became very upset when they
    didn't.  I am a right-wing republican, but agree that we (Republicans,
    Democrats, and others) must all work together.  I am willing to support
    President-elect (that was hard to say) Bill Clinton if it is for the good
    of our country, no matter how I feel about his as a person.  I actually
    don't think he is going to be as bad as we (Republicans) say he is.  I
    hope you accept my sincere apology.
                                        -Shawn-
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Just in case you missed them
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:31:24 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              6 Nov 1992 19:44:22 GMT from <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>

From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>

> I'd just like to thank the Logic Czar for the award, and before I break into
> an uncontrollable sob, all the people who made this award possible.  My mum,
> dad, all the list members, and most important, you, the folks at home.  This
> award is for you.  I LOVE YOU ALL!!

> james

One minor correction.  You don't have to thank "all" the list
members.  You owe your award to a few recently joined "village idiots"
(as our list President recently named them).

--KAT
From: CORJB@RHODES.BITNET (Jason Briggs Cormier)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: new tariffs
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:23:27 GMT
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

One professor at Rhodes, claims that this trade-war mentality will
send the US into a full-scale Depression.  Are there any economists
out there who might have any ideas?

I personally think that trade wars are stupid and that consuers
would do best in the long run if there were no barriers to trade.

I do realize the political impracticality of this, but it is a nice
thought.

j.B.
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:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:39:00 EDT
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was CONWAY_OWEN@BENTLEY
From:         CONWAY_O@BENTLEY.BITNET
Subject:      Re: electoral collage and question from my 9-yr-old

        While I support the electoral college myself, I asked my government
teacher about changing it to popular vote. Although this might be a dumb reason
not to change it, it gives you somthing to think about. He said "If we do that
they that is the end of Federalism." He's right we can't abolish the main
principle our country was founded on.
        O.C.
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 09:54:06 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject: Re: gays in military (Canada)
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

"A religious belief IS the truth. The signpost is the result of one's
non-belief."  --Steve
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:52:11 GMT

erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU writes:
>How can you say that the Pats solicited more votes for Marrou? 
>Libertarians are liberal socially and the Pats are ultra-conservative.
>--Steve

That is precisely what he meant.  See, many of us who are considered
'economically conservative' are deeply concerned with the arguments
in _favor_ of individual liberty.  That is, we want to support capitalism
in a principled way.  That means: profound respect for the protection
of a particular moral sphere for action of the individual.

Unfortunately, the ultra-conservative approach of Pat Buchanan fails
as a defense of capitalism!  If it is right for the government to
intrude upon our lives in _social_ issues (I'm thinking of laws about
drug use, private sexual behavior, etc.) then there isn't any
principled argument that can be made to prevent the government from
regulating our _commercial_ (_economic_) behavior, too.

The take-over of the Republican party by the radical Right has deeply
offended and concerned people who believe in a basically Jeffersonian
vision for our country (and world.)

Thus, Buchanan's quasi-Nazi antics drove many moderate conservatives
to alternatives: Libertarians, Perot, and even (gasp!) Clinton.

--Jimbo
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:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 06:49:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Religious Rantings, Robert and T
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Okay, first off I want to say to Robert and T:

_I_ don't care who is defaming whoose character and nor do I wish to
bother wading through messages that argue about it.  Figure it out in
private and keep this list out of it.

Secondly, I will once AGAIN mention that there is a list called
BELIEF-L, for religious discussions and discussions of belief
systems.  This list is very high volume and we limit the amount
of diverse attitudes by only allowing those with time or luxury
enough to read it to be party to the discussions.  I think anything
we can do to make sure that the items that DO get posted are relevant
to the topic at hand would be extremely helpful.

Thanks,

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