HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: acm@grendal.Corp.Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Banning Political Ads
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:44:15 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <9204131420.AA06020@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
 >Giggle.  They think that they're running a legalization campaign.
 >They're using "here's the truth about hemp" form, just as Clinton runs
 >"here's the truth about Brown/Bush" ads.

There is nothing in my proposal against ads being run to legalize
a substance.  My proposal is a ban on paid advertising for political
races.  (Of course, you knew that all along and were just pretending
not to have a clue.)

 >>My proposal never suggested that *all* tv ads be banned.  Again, I
 >>wonder if you *really* understand my proposal at all.
 >
 >I assumed that the proposal was at least sensible enough to broadly
 >define political ads, because otherwise the loopholes are larger than
 >the proposal.  That was a mistake on my part.

While is it refreshing to hear you admit to a mistake, I am afraid
in this case you are still wrong.  Since we already have a great
deal of laws and regulations on the books defining what a 'political'
ad is, I suggest using what already exists.  You are the only one
suggesting that we throw out everything and start from scratch.


 >>sentence?  You know the one, where you state that non-news programs
 >>could be used as forums (much as the League of Women's Voters does
 >>today.)
 >
 >You're going to let "independent" groups run political ads?  What a
 >deal.  At this point, I withdraw all objections because the proposal
 >doesn't affect access at all.

What a funny world you must live in.  Haven't you every watched or
were even aware of the League of Women's Voters and their debates?
I will give you a hint.  Those televised debates were not political
ads yet they were paid for.

I am glad you are withdrawing all objections.  It has become quite
obvious that you haven't much knowledge of our electoral process!

And so ends the debate.


					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:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:33:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: data please

>Of course, what drives me up the wall are the incoherent leftist liberals who
>favor the use of aborted fetus' for scientific advancement, but not animals.
>


    You've forgotten one thing -- the aborted fetus' are not produced
  specifically to be used in scientific research, but the animals are
  ONLY used for it.  If women were coerced/forced into an abortion for
   the scientific value of the fetus, I most certainly would have a
  problem with it.  By the way, I don't appreciate being called
  incoherent

     --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 09:15:49 EDT
From:         "Patrick W. Hamlett" <PWHMDS@NCSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Where's the politics in POLITICS??

On Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:52:20 CDT Robert G. Heidlage said:
>This discussion group should be called "Ideology" or
>something else (philosopy?).  There's very little real politics...
>candidates, platforms, parties, elections, legislatures, seats therof,
>more elections, legislators, personalities, campaigns, more elections...
>bills, resolutions, treaties, ...etc.  you get the idea.
>That's politics.  Where's the politics in this listserv?  What's
>this business of guns, gay rights, whatever...
>THAT'S not politics.
>Let's have some politics:  What are the Ulster unionists going to
>demand for     their 6-7 seats if the Parliament is hung ??

Since when did political philosophy cease to involve politics?
Hamlett
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:08:13 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: anti-hunters

KAT:

If we got in a fire fight, you are right that you would loose to me.

Perhaps self control is something you lack.  If we were arguing, and I wanted
to hurt you, I have a wide range of options available, without guns.

The idea that crime is caused or made worse by the availability of legal guns
is silly.  In fact, by its expression, it is prima-facie wrong.

It is only the distribution of guns in the lawful population that has a
chance to do what police cannot - protect the innocent.

Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago

"I smoked pot, but don't worry, I didn't inhale."  - Bill Clinton
"I shot heroine, but don't worry, I missed the vein." - man at Clinton rally
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, 12 Apr 1992 13:14:00 EDT
From:         LWONG@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Bombings in Britain

> How long can the US government tollerate the financial and technological
> support of terrorists by its own people?

        are you suggesting a totalitarian gov't?
>
> Those Americans who advocate the end of British rule in N. Ireland should
> find a better way of doing so than killing innocent civilians.
>
        do all american supporters of irish independance support the
I.R.A.?  does that make them killers?  are americans doing the killing
or irishmen?  or brits, for that matter?  i humbly suggest that you
stop making rash generalizations.

by the way, you may want to read 'Harry's Game.' i can't recall the
author's name, but he was a journalist in irelanad, and it's about the
functions of the I.R.A.-- following the footsteps of a british
intelligence operative.

> Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
> University of Chicago
>
> "Entitlement does not lead to Empowerment."   Jay Steven Sultan

-lynda
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:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:49:00 EDT
From:         ANDREW ALLEN <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

>2) A president should pick justices based on their devotion to the con-
>   stitution and their legal experience, not on their personal opinions/
>   interpretations/wishes about what the constitution means.

Yeah, and Presidents should be chosen based on their ideas, executive
competence and commitment to the Constitution rather than on the basis
of how they look on TV or freedom from personal scandal.

Take care of that and the SC problem will work itself out. B)

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 02:17:01 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bombings in Britain

Well, all that moeny that Americans spent on St Paddy's day (for scholarships
and hopsitals, of course - used 10s and 20s prefered) is being put to good
use.

How long can the US government tollerate the financial and technological
support of terrorists by its own people?

Those Americans who advocate the end of British rule in N. Ireland should
find a better way of doing so than killing innocent civilians.

Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago

"Entitlement does not lead to Empowerment."   Jay Steven Sultan
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: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:34:28 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

Travis writes:                                              V
>1) The freedom of choice act would be federalo-imperialistic, hence
>   unconstitutional.
>2) A president should pick justices based on their devotion to the con-
>   stitution and their legal experience, not on their personal opinions/
>   interpretations/wishes about what the constitution means.

On (1): how is a freedom of choice act any less constitutional than other
federal regulation guaranteeing rights to privacy?  I ask because I don't
know, and don't (yet) understand the legal/constitutional issues involved.

On (2): I agree, but when has that ever been the case?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:22:47 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting

>>>and kill animals for pleasure.
>>
>> Nope.  Hunting is enjoyable, and killing is part of hunting, but
>> killing for pleasure is not the purpose of hunting.
>>
>hunting is enjoyable, one part of it is the kill.  Now if the kill is
>not essential for this pleasure, then killing is gratutious.  If
>killing is essential for hunting (it seems to be required; hunting
>without killing [or wounding] is a nature journey), then killing is
>part of the pleasure.  QED

Note how the argument is changing.  Before we had "the purpose of
hunting is to kill for pleasure" and now we're to "killing is
part of the pleasure of hunting".

Let's look at the "proof".

Walking barefoot in wet grass at night, looking at the stars is
enjoyable, but one part of it is killing snails.  ....

Killing is not essential for the pleasure of hunting.  I've seen
hunters after both "successful" and "unsuccessful" trips.  If
anything, they enjoyed the "unsuccessful" ones just as much.  The
thrill is the hunt, which may, or may not, end in death.

>> In this world, it is the only way.  No one else gives a damn, or
>> rather, a dollar.  (Some countries have lots of elephants and some
>> don't have any left.  Guess which ones have elephant hunting.)
>
>it may be on the whole the only way, though all this "whining" against
>environmentalists shows there is some who feel sacrifice is just, but
>I fail to agree it's a good way.

It may be a wretched way, but it has one significant advantage over
the alternatives; it works.

>As noted elsewhere, hunter self interest supports select animals and
>habitats for protection unproportionally over others, showing a flaw
>in the system.

Actually, that doesn't happen much any more, because hunters have
figured out that it doesn't work.  (In fact, one of the standard
"lessons" in game habitat management is about such an attempt and its
failures....)

>Also, a movement toward a bigger appreciation for wildlife and nature
>seems to be needed in this world, and I'm not ready to say this is an
>utopian goal.

That's possibly a noble goal (although I detect a whiff of something
else), but the habitat and species have to be preserved NOW.

>P.S. I'm inclined to agree that if you kill for food (though some
>animals raised supply more than food i.e. leather, hormones, etc.), it
>isn't _that_ much different than eating a steak.  I personally believe
>that hunting has negative consequences of which are somewhat
>subjective [_Animal Liberation_ and _Man Kind?_ influencing me some],
>which are debatable.

Yawn.  When you're perfect, we can talk about saving me from my sins.

-andy



--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 02:51:13 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Poor Jay, society's victim

No, I don't blame society.  That same school system was enough to get me into
the best Universities in the country.

I think I made clear in my earltier post that I am soley to blame for my lack
of spelling ability.  In the tradition of the strong republicans, I take
responsibility for my own actions.

I did get advanced a year (I never saw the 7th grade).  Is that where people
learn to spell?

Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago

"Type faster."    - Issac Asimov (?-1992), when asked what he would do if he
                    knew he only had six months to live.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 09:22:01 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bill Clinton - Best Demo Pol since JFK

>I see many of the things Clinton does as intentional.  His golf
>at an all-white club certainly *prevents* the Repubs in the fall
>from labeling him with the "politically-correct" tag.  It won't
>prevent any moderate - moderate progressive from voting for him.

It also demonstrates something about principle.  (If it's wrong
after he becomes president, it's a disqualifying characteristic.)

>Hilary Clinton's comment about Bush girlfriends is a warning shot -
>talk about ours, and we'll talk about yours.  !!!

The electorate hates to be lied to.  If Clinton makes the charge
and it doesn't stick ....

Those of us who don't like the goals of either party prefer
stalemate....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:22:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

On Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:39:27 EDT Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
> >From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
>
> >1) The freedom of choice act would be federalo-imperialistic, hence
> >   unconstitutional.
>
> False. As has already been pointed out, the Congress has the
> power to pass such an act, under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Tell me again--what part of the fourteenth amendment gives Congress
the power to do anything it wants?

>
> >2) A president should pick justices based on their devotion to the con-
> >   stitution and their legal experience, not on their personal opinions/
> >   interpretations/wishes about what the constitution means.
>
> This makes no sense at all.
> A Supreme Court Justice's main job is to interpret the Constitution.
> A President should choose Justices who will interpret the Constitution
> well. How can the President do that if he doesn't know what the
> (potential) Justice thinks the Constitution means?? Should he
> pick someone who is really devoted to "the Constitution" but
> who thinks that the Constitution favors Marxism?
>
> Jamie
Yes, if the justice can back his arguments up, which I doubt in this
case.  Also note I said "legal experience."

-Travis
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, 16 Apr 1992 13:44:00 EDT
From:         GU091DCF@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Victory for America, Loss for UAW

Jay,

        If the government supplied such things as health care and a DECENT
social security program, unions wouldn't have to fight for these things.

Derrick

"Nonviolence is the only true force." -Gahndi
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:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:12:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: JOE's query

In article <tfilt197050@drew.edu>, Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes:
>>From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
>
> Unfortunately, I couldn't tell WHICH case JOE meant.
> If it's the reapportionment case in Georgia, I have
> already posted my view of that case.
>
> Jamie
>
right you are; it's title didn't seem to state it was about it, so I
didn't read it the first time around. I found it though, and all is
well, relatively speaking.

          -JOE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 09:25:58 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: guns don't kill people, television kills people

>        hmmm. actually, tv usually doesn't kill people.  nor do
>        guns.  in fact it is usually the bullet that is fired from
>        the gun that kills people.  i'll accept the right to
>        own guns as long as ammunition is strictly prohibited.

Ha, ha, ha.

But seriously, when has the US ever managed to make something
unavailable?  We can't stop drugs, we couldn't stop alcohol, what
makes you think that we can stop guns or ammunition for inappropriate
use?  No one else has either.

I've MADE both ammunition and guns, so I'm not about to believe that
illegal manufacture is hard.  (Whether or not it can successfully
compete with smuggling is another question, but the answer doesn't
affect availability.)

It is rather easy to shut down target shooting, which "uses" most of
the ammunition, and self-defense, and most hunting, but there's no
benefit to doing any of these, only costs, significant ones in the
case of self-defense.  You have to shut down those who misuse guns to
provide any benefits, and that's unlikely because, in this society,
they happen to be people with a long history of violence and guns will
be available illegally.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:27:00 EST
From:         "Give me Sodomy or give me death!" <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      re: note to 'give me sodomy or give me death'

From:         kirk raymond <GR8724@SIUCVMB.BITNET>
Subject:      note to 'give me sodomy or give me death'

 in today's world, you can have it all.

        protect yourself and those you love: wear a condom.
        the quote is, incidentally, the title of a recent recording of
        Diamanda Galas' "Plague Mass," performed in, i think,
        St Mary's in nyc.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 09:28:24 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: andy's water info

>>Nope.  The runoff doesn't come from anywhere near the aquifers being
>>depleted.* (Almost all of the runoff is snowmelt.)  It is distributed
>>via many the same channels it historically used over the aquifers.
>>Furthermore, remember the "agriculture wastes water because it doesn't
>>use lined canals, it uses channels that leak lots of water" argument;
>>that's the "detail" behind "agriculture wastes water", so Kerry can't
>>have it both ways.  (The other part of the argument is "agriculture
>>over waters", which presents the same problems to Kerry's thesis.)
>>Agriculture's "water waste" is aquifer replenishment.  (Much of
>>personal and industrial water doesn't go into the aquifer because it
>>goes into sewer systems.  One could argue that treated water should go
>>into the aquifer, but it, unlike agricultural uses, doesn't.)
>
>OK.  First, unless andy has data to support otherwise, ground water is non-
>renewable on human timescales.

It can be replenished at the same rate that it can be depleted; pumps
work both ways.

>                       That is, agricultural waste water may be
>running over aquifers, but I doubt it's all percolating into those aquifers
>.  And, given the amount of non point source pollution those waters might
>contain, that's probably a good thing.  Water is wasted in agriculture in
>several ways -- including evaporation.  See, I *said* it was complicated :)

Agriculture SOURCE water is running over said aquifers in leaky
channels.  Many places don't even have waste water...

I'm not saying that we're not depleting aquifers; I'm pointing out
that agriculture has little to do with that problem and that said
depletion isn't subsidized.

>>* - Aquifer issues don't even apply to much of SoCal because it never
>>had an aquifer to deplete....
>
>Well, some largeish chunk of SoCal's water comes from the Owen's valley.
>Bunches of the rest comes from Northern California, from various sources.
>Again, though, to the extent that non-ground water supplies SoCal, it
>contributes to depletion of aquifers in other parts of the state.

Not necessarily.  (As a NoCal person, I'm supposed to harsh on SoCal
water use, but as an ex-Valley person, I like to remind folks that the
SF Bay Area is WORSE than SoCal as far as water goes.  We not only
steal water from the Sierras, we're depleting an aquifer.)  A whole
heap of that water used to go into the sea during melt months.

BTW - I've nothing against depopulating CA.

-andy

ps - Yup, CA causes water problems elsewhere as well.  (Since CA's
borders are arbitrary ....)  And, there are water problems in the west
that are different from any found in CA.  I'll let other folks write
about them.
--
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@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.EDU
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.2 (R4).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 10:49:25 EST
From:         "Greg `TwoTone' Spiegelberg" <GSPIEGEL@BSA1.KENT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: gun control again?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.EDU

Is the real purpose of this discussion to find a basis for the...

    A)  Regulation of guns?
    B)  Ligitimacy of?
    C)  Outlaw of?
    D)  Moral use of?
    E)  Other  ______________________________

-Greg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:46:14 MEZ
From:         Bernhard Schroeder <UPK002@DBNRHRZ1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: PREvious subcommand

On Thu, 9 Apr 92 11:43:48 EST John Hammond said:
>On Thu, 9 Apr 1992 10:46:58 EDT Fran Hensler said:
>>...text deleted...
>>discarded.  The PREvious subcommand would be perfect except that it goes
>>back to the previous UNDISCARDED mail.  I've never had a case when I wanted
>>to do this.
>>
>>Richard, would you consider an option on the PREvious subcommand to go back
>>to the absolute previous mail?  Or maybe a SETMAIL option for the PREVious
>>subcommand?
>>...text deleted...
>   How about another option which would go back to the prior piece of mail
>regardless of whether it had been deleted or not?  Call it PRIOR.
I would like this idea very much. For me, too, such a command would help me
saving much time because I normally scroll through my mail keeping my finger
on the delete key. And it happens quite often that I have to step back
when my finger was faster than my eyes.

Regards

Bernhard

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%  Bernhard Schroeder M.A.                                 %
%  Institut fuer Kommunikationsforschung & Phonetik        %
%  Universitaet Bonn                                       %
%  Poppelsdorfer Allee 47                                  %
%  W - 5300 Bonn 1 / Germany                               %
%                                                          %
%  phone: +49 228 / 73 - 5621  or  ... / 26 30 64 (priv.)  %
%  fax:   +49 228 / 73 - 5629                              %
%  bitnet:   upk002@dbnrhrz1                               %
%  internet: upk002@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de                   %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU