HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:15:54 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      why gold - money qualities
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

"Why gold?" you ask.

[Here are the qualities money should have:]
-portability
-indestructibility
-homogeneity
-divisibility
-cognizability
-relative stability of value compared to other commodities

As Jevons comments, "Some of the metals seem to be marked out by nature as
most fit of all substances for employment as money, at least when acting
as medium of exchange and a store of value"

(This passage taken from M. Skousen book on gold. I hope you will find
it of value)

Caius.
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:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 13:45:39 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: nambla
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>> I think it's unfair to mention NAMBLA in a company of unsavory groups.
>> I believe that there is nothing wrong about loving children (that's
>> all NAMBLA is about). It is wrong to molest children, but not to love
>> them, even sexually. NAMBLA is created as a support group for people
>> who are attracted to children. It is not a cabal of child molesters.
>>
>> Sam.
>>
>I don't know about the rest of you, but this whole paragraph is a
>mass of contradictions to me.  Please explain to me how one could
>have sex with children but not be molesting them.
>Jonathan

        It would depened on whether you thought people of a certain age were
competent to make such a decision.
        On a broader subject, just when should we treat kids like adults?  I've
known some 16 year olds that were more mature than people twice their age.
        What about two 17-year olds that have sex?  Two 15-year olds?  Who is
doing the molesting in that case?

        Personally, I think the blanket coverage of everyone below 18 as being
irresponsible (in the legal sense) to be incorrect, but can't think of any way
around it.  Kids do need protection against those who would defraud or harm
them, but then again everyone does.  When can we determine that a person can
make their own decisions?  There is no test for it.  In today's world, I'd
argue that most 16 year olds are mature enough to make their own decisions.

        Perhaps what we need is a "declaration of adulthood" that people can
make at whatever age they want, defaulting at 21.  That way it's up to the
individual to decide.

        I'm aware that people can go to court now and achieve the same thing,
but that's a bit of trouble for everyone to go through.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:35:02 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Pardons: who needs them?

>From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
>
>Granted, we have had limited numbers of democratic executive office
>holders in the past quarter century but can anyone list examples of
>pardons handed out by democratic presidents? I can't think of any off
>hand.

Carter pardoned all Vietnam draft evaders. How quickly we forget!

Other memorable pardons:

Reagan pardoned Armand Hammer for his alleged illegal dealings with
Nixon's campaign.

Ford, of course, pardoned Nixon. Also a limited pardon for some Vietnam
draft evaders.

Nixon definitely pardoned SOMEONE. Who was it? Argh. Val, do you
recall??

Warren Harding pardoned Eugene Debbs.

>As far as the Iran-Contra investigation taking a long time, that
>is what tends to happen when the administration is using all avialable
>resources to deny access to materials connected with the case on the
>never fails grounds of national security.

I agree, Fred. Jonathan has put all of this very nicely.

>Has anyone heard anything about Ross Perot lately?

Ross has been captured by aliens. You didn't know this? What do you
DO while waiting in line at the supermarket??

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 12:23:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      virtual white house holiday menu

the official xmas holiday menu is as follows:

Fresh fruit salad w/madiera wine and honey dressing.

Antipasto w/ assorted cheeses, roasted red peppers, marinated artichoke hearts,
marinated eggplant, black olives, spanish olives, marinated chick peas, braised
fennel, fresh fennel, and orange slices w/olive oil and cracked black pepper.

(trust me the oranges are amazing this way)

Mushroom stuffed calzones.
Spicey spinach pizza roll.
Pizza w/olive oil, garlic and rosemary.

Manicotti stuffed w/ricotta, onion and spinach in marinara sauce.

Baked green bell peppers w/tuna and breadcrumb stuffing.

Green salad w/toasted pignolis (olive oil and balsamic vinegar dressing).

Cranberry-cream stuff (i have no idea what its called-but its heavenly).

Pumpkin pie
Key lime pie

For the carnivores, my sister is bringing a ham w/raisin sauce.


here's hoping everyone's holiday is happy, prosperous, and above all,
*filling*.

Love and Good Wishes to All,

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:05:56 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Overhead (does a domed stadium count?)

> an institution (e.g Stanford charged a sailboat for the president

The sailboat in question (at 70 some feet, is it really a boat?) was
not for the president's use.  (I think that Stanford would have gotten
away with it if it was for the president's use.  We've got good
lawyers.)

Besides, Stanford got away with a lot more than that, and will
continue to do so.

Of course, with a new year's day bowl game, you won't hear about it
any more.  As someone once noted, there's nothing wrong with
Stanford's PR that a winning on Saturday won't fix.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:37:44 EST
From:         Scott Murray <wsmurray@UALR.EDU>
Subject:      RE: Original Intent
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@KSUVM.KSU.EDU

I'm enjoying this discussion on constitutional interpretation. I haven't
seen any discussion of the sociological jurisprudence model. This theory,
which I think was developed by Brandies or Cardozo early in this century,
takes into account extra-legal factors such as conditions in society. It
could loosely be classed as a noninterpretivist theory. _Brown v. Board of
Education_ is an example of sociological jurisprudence. The court took into
account volumes of statistics in concluding that "separate but equal" schools
were *in fact* unequal. The sociological jurisprudence doctrine was used
in other civil rights cases, as well as some of the voting rights cases
of the 1960s.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 12:31:00 CST
From:         POHENRY@STMARYTX.BITNET
Subject:      listserv

set politics nomail
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:21:00 EST
Comments:     <Parser> W: Invalid RFC822 field - "<R_ALEMAN@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU>".
              Rest of header flushed.
From:         Michael_Plowinske <SMJP@SNYCENVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Technical question

On Mon, 21 Dec 1992 09:17:00 AST Ramon said:
>
>        How do I tell the Listserv at UCF1VM to send me my own posts?
>        If you don't know either, then stay around and learn!!!

  Ramon and others,

  Mail or interactive message (VM TELL or VMS SEND(?) )
  LISTSERV (@UCF1VM or @OHSTVMA) the following command:

  SET POLITICS REPRO


  Note:  If you are mailing the command it must be the body of
         the mail, not the subject line.

         All lines in your mail will be considered commands,
         including your .SIG

         The commands go to LISTSERV@host not the whole list.

                                                      - Mike P.
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, 24 Dec 1992 12:22:00 EST
From:         waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Milosevic wins
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>"Fascism is a dictatorship of the extreme right"? This definition can not
>be applied to modern Russia. In Russia HARD-LINE COMMUNISTS are
>considered to be "the right".

Then it's a good thing I wasn't applying it to Russia.  I was applying it
to *your* definition, to show that fascism was not a "dictatorship of the
free market".

>Sam.

Gary W. Olson                   "Santa'll cut ya, man!  Santa's a blade man!"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU     -Crow, MST3K presentation of
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET               'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'
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"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 3 Jan 1993 21:10:00 EST
From:         WKIMLER@DREW.DREW.EDU
Subject:      homosexuality and genetics
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

        In the year just past there was some scientific discussion as to
whether or not homosexuality was a genetic or physical trait.  I'm not
sure as to the exact details but one of the studies indicated that the
size and/or shape of the brains of homosexual men were different than that
of heterosexual men.  But as far as I can recall, the studies were still
inconclusive.

        Supposing that homosexuality is a genetic trait (such as having
blue eyes or blonde hair) would you out there, who feel homosexual feelings
and actions are immoral, reconsider your thoughts on the discrimination
laws in Colorado and other places?
        Would religious beliefs and doctrines need to be updated?  Obviously
you cannot call something which is genetic sinful.

                                        - billy clyde
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 09:08:00 AST
From:         Ramon <R_ALEMAN@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: NORNAL
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>> Considering the season and, uh, with all due respect to interested parties,
>> shouldn't we record the first case of artificial insemination as 4 B.C.?
>> Devoutly,
>> Michael

>   if you want to look at it that way . . . i personally would have
>to classify it as either fornication (sex with someone she's not
>married to? shocking . . . ) or as incest, sort of (god was the father,
>god was the offspring . . . i wonder if it was the same person of the
>trinity in both cases?).
>  if it was artificial insemination, wouldn't we have to postulate
>some sort of divine masturbation? i wonder if any known theology
>could handle that? (sorry :) just couldn't hold it back :))

          Hmmm, Theology raises its ugly face again...;and at this time of
the year, too. Shocking! (I thought up a few weird replies myself to that
one but I'll keep 'em...)

     -Ramon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 12:54:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      More cabinet appointments

Clinton is supposedly appointing Les Aspin (Defense) and Warren
Christopher (Sec. of State) today.

I thought it was interesting how he responded to the feminist groups
yesterday.  Look, I would love to see more women in the Cabinet.  And I
haven't been happy with all of Clinton's choices (Ron Brown especially).

But I think it was >way off base< to accuse Clinton of reneging on his
promise to make his cabinet look more like America.  I get the impression
that he is genuinely struggling to fulfill his promise and to also
strike a balance between making the effort to appoint more women and
minorities, and choosing people who are not only qualified, but are
people he can work with.  I think it's pretty obvious by now that
Clinton's criteria for his cabinet selections involve a heck of a lot
more than the way they used to be selected by previous administrations.
In fact, I can't think of any >one< strategy he is using.  He is not
picking people by mere ideology alone.  He is not making "token" racial
and gender selections.  He is not picking insiders over outsiders, or
vice versa.  He seems to be picking, for the most part, people whom he
can personally work well with.

I want to see more women in the cabinet, but it infuriates me to see
a bunch of self-styled Watchdogs for Women swaggering around acting
like they have a God-given right to demand quotas.  Who the HELL do
they think they are?  I am probably going to get a backlash for this
but they are acting like brats let loose in a candy store.

I'm a woman and I voted for Clinton because I thought he would do more
to put women in their rightful place as equals in the power structure.
That wasn't the only reason, but that was part of it.  I don't think
three women in the Cabinet (which is how it looks to turn out right
now) is enough.

But I don't think Clinton hasn't been trying, and making a real
effort, in good faith, to make things better.

It is so ironic that women's groups are screaming, and maybe minority
groups will start to scream, and the pundits will start to scream that
Clinton is appointing unqualified people because he's bending to
pressures from special interest groups...

Don't these idiots all know that these "special interest groups"
OVERLAP?  Women and minorities?  Insiders and outsiders?

I wish Clinton the best of luck in maintaining his course.  He's earned
just a little more respect from me in handling this difficult process,
and it's not over yet.


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:44:58 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: kids

>>Just to quibble...a lesbian woman can have a child if she's raped.
>
>Just to quibble, she can have a child even if she isn't raped.
>
>As Kerry points out, she can be artificially inseminated.

Just to quibble a bit more, she can have a child even if she isn't
artifically inseminated.

Gay people aren't physically incapable of "intercourse for
procreation".

-andy
--
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, 21 Dec 1992 14:37:15 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      hitler leftist
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

VALENTINE M. SMITH (VMS) writes:
> Caius' claim that Hitler and Mussolini were "LEFTIST" is totally without
> substantiation, nor does he offer a shred of evidence to buttress his
> alleged "case." I cannot discuss an issue where an irrational position is
> taken, and only rhetoric is offered to defend it.

OK. Let's not quarrel about the "accepted terms", lets talk about the evidence.

May I ask you, the sources expert, several questions:

1) Was German economy before 1933 (before Hitler)
-free market
-mixed
-planned ?

2)      Was German economy in 1939 (after six years of Hitler's administration)
-more free market
-more planned
than in 1933?

3) Was German political system in 1933
-democratic
-authoritarian
-totalitarian ?

4) Was German political system in 1939
-more democratic
-more authoritarian
-more totalitarian
than in 1933?

Anybody who has: own opinion/source_citation/expert_statement/proof/evidence
etc. send it to me <caius@ii.uj.edu.pl> I will summarize and present it to
POLITICS        as soon as possible.

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 12:05:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      1960?!?

>         I'm sure Ted Koppel thought he was being objective when he did his "
> 48 hrswith the Clinton campaign", but it was merely a fluff piece where Ted
> gushed on about how 1992 was so much like 1960.
> Brett'

1992 is >not< going to be like 1960.  I think ol' Koppel was way off the
mark on that one, as is most everyone else, IMO.

This nearsighted view of American history is getting ridiculous.  If anyone
would just go back beyond the Kennedy mythos for a damn change, they would
see that ever since the signing of the Constitution and the inauguration of
our first president in the late 1780's, America has twice faced particularly
severe crises or tests since.  About every 60 to 70 years, although America is
a nation constantly in crisis and movement, this nation seems to come into
extraordinary difficulties.

I don't believe in strict numerical cycles, because history is not merely
a formula of cycles and years, but it would be absolutely stupid and
nearsighted to believe that we will not face an extraordinarily severe
national crisis again, on the order of the two we've arguably been through
before.  If it is not going to be exactly 60 or 70 years from the second
one, then it certainly >will< come in the years beyond that, if we don't
do something about it now.

I don't know how well Clinton will do, but the American people will be
making an extreme error if they insist on not seeing the events of today
in terms of a wider focus.  We seem to be headed towards one in the next
ten to twenty years.  The people are becoming more estranged from the
government, the media is becoming estranged from everything else, and
the American people are becoming more estranged from each other.  We're
slowly falling apart, and Clinton and a lot of other people realize
that.  We have not yet arrived at the edge of the cliff; we're still
sliding slowly toward it.  We still have enough time to not fall off
the cliff.

The idea that 1992 is going to be like 1960, in terms of historical
significance and the events in the life of the nation, is laughably
nearsighted and naive.  The fact that (if you were to be pedantic about
it and follow a strict numeric cycle) this crisis seems to be scheduled
for the year 2000 or thereabouts makes it seem even stupider.

That doesn't mean we have to run around like Chicken Little with the
sky falling, but we have to stop being so nearsighted and start looking
at all of American history as a guide to our immediate future; not just
at the last 30 to 50 years.

In that small measure, at least, I am thankful that Clinton seems to
understand that the country has to be socially and economically reunited
and strengthened.  He may not understand that we may be approaching a
real crisis on the order of the Great Depression or the Civil War, but
at least he understands the great issue of the coming time, and the
dangers we >will< face if we don't do something about it >now<.

Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 2 Jan 1993 14:48:53 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: On Bosnia, Serbia and a Potential "Third Balkan War," #800
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Thomas:

>On the contrary, you can easily prove something wrong by providing
>a counter exapmle. That's a fairly common practice in Mathematics...

The above statement is an example of your poor knowledge of logics.
According to you, I can use this example as a proof. It is very
tempting to do that, but I will not. For 2 reasons:
                  1. The proof can not be based on a false premise.
                  2. An example can not be used as a proof.

Let me give you some examples (not to prove anything--just to explain).
Suppose someone says that most Greeks living in Greece speak their
native language. To prove that, he shows you a citizen of Greece who
speaks his native tongue. Suppose you disagree with that person's
statement and as an example show him another man, who lives in Greece but
for some reason doesn't speak Greek. Will you be able to prove anything
by using those people as examples? Of course not.

Or suppose you want to prove that most people with blond hair are
stupid and show me a blond idiot as an example. In my turn, I can
show you a world-famous scientist who is blond. Will we prove any-
thing to each other? No. Because an example can not serve as a proof.

You mentioned Mathematics... As you know, in Mathematics two negatives
make a positive. In logics, it's not quite like that...

In short, learn some basic facts about logics before trying to prove
something.

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