HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET (Evelyn Duncan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Elections
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:09:33 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Imagine:
  What if Clinton and Bush were not running for President.  Which
Democrat or Republican would you vote for for President?

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:01:45 EDT
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: In your heart, you know he's right. (NOT!)

>   scott, are you old enough to remember the last democratic president
>we had? southern governor, running as an outsider, against an unpopular
>republican president, with a democratic congress to boot? why don't you
>check out the economy after he got done with it, and then tell me why
>you think clinton can do any better.
>
This is like when baseball announcers will mention a hitter's average
on natural turf during night games on Tuesdays in August against left-
handed pitchers named "Bob".  The stat might be vaguely useful, but more
than likely the announcer is just killing some time.

Clinton is a different kind of Democrat than Carter was/is.  Why do
pro-Bush folks think Clinton will be like Carter?  Both are Democrats?
Both are Southerners?  How about a comparison of Carter's record as
governor of Georgia and Clinton's record as governor of Arkansas instead
of comparisons of superfluous details.
   todddddddddddd
>rtf

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "The church saves sinners...
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   science seeks to stop their
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    manufacture." - E. HUBBARD
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:40:11 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      mcphil flunks math and logic

mcphil says that it is ok that the republican senators voted for a pay
raise since they also voted to remove other income. Why does that make
a difference for the republicans but not for the democrats? Didn't they
all vote on the same bill?

I think your comment about women in low paying jobs did very little for
your list esteem, if any.

fred
read before you vote
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:35:10 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      jennifer fitzgerald, rodents (flying and otherwise),
              and their ilk

the jennifer fitzgerald question was dealt with admirably in this past month's
issue of _spy_ magazine.  remarkable lack of sensationalism, there.
much, i might add, unlike the decided wealth of sensationalism flying
about on this list's campaign notices.

fitzgerald, fitzgerald...could this be a kennedy tie-in? (no, evelyn and
*** and jenna, i did not say 'kennedy tie-up'.)

i had this big long post all ready to go, but i'm a bit tired and generally
all upset after a day of dealing with the serbs, croats, and the spectre of
human rights atrocities.

the big, hairy bats usually only chase *me* around after too much tequila,
jenna.  then, i get rid of 'em with either a big ruler or a revolver.

                                   * * * anneliese "talk to by big samoan
                                         lawyer about it" l.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:46:47 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: question on polls
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              20 Aug 1992 13:15:12 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WV NET.EDU>

On Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:15:12 -0400 <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU> said:

>conventions.  Neat stuff.  Anyway, he said he'd stayed up late last night
>to watch whatever call-in show CNN was offering.  He says most of the
>callers were folks who were switching from the Republican to the Democratic
>ticket.  If anyone else watched, is this what happened?

Lots of people watch CNN, making it somewhat influential.  Others, knowing
this, call in and say "I'm a disgruntled Republican and I'm switching my
vote."  Very simple and probably very effective.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 10:18:00 EDT
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: George Bush on abortion

>         That leaves us with the second item. But I am not really
> convinced that this is a valid argument. For one reason, Souter (a
> Bush appointee) sided with O'Connor in upholding RvW. In fact her
> argument was that to strike against RvW would somehow undermine the
> legitimacy of the Court (I'm glad that she didn't hear Brown v Board
> of Education). And Souter sided with that grand bit of legal wisdom.
> Thomas (the other Bush appointee) voted with the minority.
>
> 	That leaves the Bush appointees batting .500. Hardly a decisive
> argument that the Bush appointees are carrying out some kind of
> marching orders.

I don't think we should make too much of this.  The Bush administration
desperately wanted to avoid making it look like they were packing the
Court with anti-abortion votes (even though they were looking for anti-
abortion judges).  They knew that if they actively screened the judges
on the basis of their positions on abortion, the word would get out and
would almost certainly lead to the candidate's rejection by the Senate.
So they probably had to do as much guessing as the rest of us did.

The Republican criticism of the Democratic "litmis test" on abortion
(now there's a bit of gall!), as pointed out by Kerry, convinces me that
this is another issue on which they want to maintain "deniability."

By the way, what the Big Three upheld was not Roe.  Roe said that the
government couldn't interfere with early-term abortions.  The Casey
decision said that the government couldn't outlaw early-term abortions.
A big difference, in my view.

Best,
Peter

> Robert Weiss
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: E7L8RAF
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 10:31:56 -0400
From:         Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Listen to what s/he said not what s/he meant

>Abortion is the indefensible taking of undefended innocent unborn
>human life.  As such, it is not only murder, but a particularly
>reprehensible kind of murder, except when exercised in self-
>defense to save the physical life of the mother.

OK, maybe now I'm being provocative.  ;-)

Perhaps the mother's life is threatened by the presence of the
fetus - but the fetus is still innocent.  Unless it is certain
(or at least very probable) that *both* will die if the fetus is
not aborted, why is it OK to kill the fetus to save the mother's
life?  Does the fetus have *fewer or weaker* rights than the
mother?

Steve, who can't wait to see what -andy thinks he's talking about
       this time
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 09:19:19 CDT
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Elections

   if clinton and bush weren't running . . . kemp on the republican
side, who i might have to actually get up and work for in '96. maybe
somebody a bit more moderate for v.p. . . .

   on the democratic side, mario would make the campaign extremely
interesting. it's been a while since we had a candidate with a
temper, who didn't hesitate to demonstrate it in public. he calls
up reporters and bitches at them now; imagine what he'd do on a
national scale!

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%UCF1VM.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 11:32:00 -0400
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Political browsing

Jimbo:

I actually have to agree with the criticism regarding crossposting.  It's
generally unfair to take someone's comments out of context without theirt
permission, _especially_ when the people are here on the list to address
the comments themselves.

If, on the other hand, you had asked Missy about the specific things that
you'd seen in the Christia post and then posted it to demonstrate a spe-
cific contradiction and asked for clarification, I don't think that would
have been _quite_ so bad, but we have enough to discuss here and now on
this list that we don't need to pull stuff from other lists.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: E7L8RAF
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 09:19:11 -0400
From:         Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: George Bush on Abortion <yawn>

-andy keeps trying to engage me in an argument I didn't make.  We seem to
agree on the notion that one can't conclude anything about the pro-lifeness
or pro-choiceness of Bush's and Quayle's positions from their responses
to the "what if your (grand)daughter?" questions.  I have tried to
point out that what -andy seems to want to argue is not what my
original post was about.  When I resposted the "thesis" statement of
my original post, -andy found it "not relevant".    <sigh>

What began this now tiresome discussion was my speculation that Bush
and Quayle could accept a choice position if they didn't apparently
believe that most women who seek abortions are lacking in
upbringing/morals.  Their statements about "support" indicated to
me that while they may be dismayed if their offspring had an
abortion, they would not be *horrified*.  I then pointed out that
one *could* conclude from their statements that they do not
equate abortion with murder.  -andy found that conclusion unacceptable
as well.  Wouldn' you know the logic-czar-2-be would be out of town?
I will have to try this on my own.  ;-)

1) Bush and Quayle do not equate abortion with murder, OR . . .

2) Murder committed by thier offspring would not horrify them, OR . . .

3) One cannot conclude anything from what either of them says.

Since we know that they will do *anything* to get re-elected, number
three is the most obviously true.  (forgive the typo in #2, please).

Of course, as -andy proves in his last response, and as I predicted was
the case in my previous post, we do not agree on what was said in the
responses to the questions, and therefore we certainly cannot agree
on what it meant.  However, I think that attempts to limit the
definition of "support" to its financial sense are examples of
equivocation and not helpful to resolving the argument, whatever
it is.

Shall we drop it -andy?  Not just because all we can do from this
point on is stir already muddy waters, but because it has become
a meta-discussion and I suspect it is boring the bulk of listmembers.
I'm not engineering to take the last word here;  feel free to
respond if you think there's a need, but then let's drop it.  OK?

Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 10:15:15 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Listen to what s/he said not what s/he meant

>Isn't it amazing the way sometimes people say things
>that they don't/can't really possibly mean?
>
> "My speech is nothing," she said.  "I'm just going to remind
>      people of what things George Bush has accomplished.  It's not
>      worth staying up for."-- Barbara Bush
>
>Wow!!!

When one is impressed by one's ability to read something into
a statement that isn't there, one is easily impressed.

Do pro-Clinton advocates have good arguments?

-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, 19 Aug 1992 14:33:16 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      RNC

 I haven't seen, what I thought was painfully obvious, mentioned in the
 RNC discussion as yet.  Every time Ronnie Ray Gun's name has been mentioned
 there immediately follows thunderous and sustained cheering.  When George
 'wimp/liar/globalist' Bush's name is used, there is a deafening silence until
 some sucker in the back of the hall begins to clap.  The facial expressions
 of the speakers, during this seemingly eternal pause, reflect an almost
 embarrassing puzzlement.

 While I believe in and support the basic tenets of the Republican party, and
 would like to see a shift of power in Congress, I cannot force myself to
 support Bush.  Apparently, a great number of the convention goers share my
 feelings.

 ---Robert
 "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:08:08 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: More on rights
              12 Aug 1992 14:52:15 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

KAT:

So, you're saying that you consider hugging to be "sexual" behavior?

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:27:26 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Throwing my helmet into the ring...

Oh, come on, Julie. We've already tried that stuff.

Don't you know this is the year of "change"?

Jamie

Ray Rickman for Secretary of State
I dunno if he's any good, but he would increase the Hipness Quotient
of Rhode Island Politics by at least 100 points.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:16:52 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      What Bush said about abortion

Frankly, who cares?
I mean, what's the issue here? There isn't any question about Bush's
reason for courting the pro-life movement. It isn't principle, it's
expediency. I am about as interested in what he would say to his
grandchildren about abortion as I am interested in what he would say to
them about birth control, or about his alleged affair.

August is generally the worst month for political campaigns, but maybe
we could rise above the trend here.

Let's here some more stuff about Jimbo's rights. I was enjoying that.
He gave a pretty awful definition, and nobody bothered him. Do I
have to harass everyone around here? Even my ex-running mate?
(I have to give credit to Richard and Andy, who have been
hounding KAT et al. nicely.)

Hey, is Constantijn still out there? Tell us something interesting
about the World Court, like, for example, what good is it? (Jason
and I have been musing about this off-line, but we don't really
know much about it.)

Or maybe everyone could follow liese's lead and describe your
local mall. I could tell you about the big book store in Garden
City Mall, Cranston, or the Victoria's Secret in Warwick Mall.
(I wish I had taken Dave there.)

Also, I hear they're having some interesting political discussions
on rec.homeowner.



Jamie
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Reading List
Date: 15 Aug 92 12:37:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <9208141424.AA17327@cuthbert.bashstreet>, dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK (Dunstan_Vavasour) writes...

>The Times, Private Eye, BBC TV and ITN. My wife is fed up with my
>staying to watch BBC's Newsnight at 10:30 pm, which is the world's
>best TV news programme, followed by Channel Four News at 7:00 pm each
>evening, from which a lot of the reports on McNeil/Lehrer are lifted.

How do the clocks work over there?

Must be Lucas is making clocks now....

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%UCF1VM.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: IN%"bifem-L@brownvm.brown.edu",JULIE
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:32:00 -0400
From:         "Satan For President-- Let's Get it Out in the Open"
              <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Gay Money
Comments: cc: bifem-L%brownvm.brown.edu@CARNEGIE.BITNET

Rhode Island Congressman Ron Machtley while at a fundraising event
with Massachusetts Governor Weld pledged yesterday that he would
not take gay money.

Machtley made a similar pledge two or three years ago when running
against Scott Wolf.  However, when the Human Rights Campaign fund
offered Machtley a contribution, Machtley did, indeed accept their
money.  The HRCF is an organization which _in theory_ supports can-
didates who are pro-gay rights, but seems to have royally screwed
up in Machtley's case.

What it boils down to is three things:

(1) The HRCF gave money to an overtly homophobic candidate instead
of supporting his opponent who had pledged to support gay rights.

(2) Machtely has not only reneged on his word but has been quite two-
faced about it.

and (3) Well.. never mind, I forget what the third thing was.

But you get thie idea.

I've been boycotting the HRCF ever since, especially since they were
really rude to our local Gay and Lesbian Alliance when we asked them
to revoke their funding of Machtley.

Yuck.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:15:16 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      oh, for heaven's sake

the coin.  i *am* an anthropologist.  well, actually, that's a point of
some debate.  okay, i'm a critical theorist, so what?  i still can figure
out stuff like that.  "b.c." indeed.
                                     laura lorson, b.a., b.a., b.a., b.a.,
                                     b.a., m.a., whatever.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Listen to what s/he said not what s/he meant
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:52:27 GMT

KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET (Kerry Stephenson) writes:

>Jimbo
>Abortion is the indefensible taking of undefended innocent unborn
>human life.  As such, it is not only murder, but a particularly
>reprehensible kind of murder, except when exercised in self-
>defense to save the physical life of the mother.

Kerry, why, to you, does the life of the mother matter more than the life
of the foetus? Just curious,

P.
>Constitutionally, there is no "right" to abortion in the text.  Obviously,
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:04:00 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Night 3 at the ol' RNC

>How many more people will die while we wait?
>--Julie

  Die of cancer?
  Die of heart disease?
  Die in automobile accidents?

                   -Tim
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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:32:54 -0500
From:         "j.b. cormier" <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Oooops,. . .

I goofed.  What I meant to say earlier is that someone
claimed that Quayle was the best political mind in the
White House.

I guess I should learn to get my facts straight.

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:22:10 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: CLINTON BIRTHDAY THANKS TO YOU

>Subject: Note from Gov. Clinton
>
>I look forward to taking my Putting People First message throughout the
>country as we head through the final phase of the campaign.

Putting People First is the name of an organization that basically
exists to counter animal-rights groups.  (I don't know much of
anything about the group.)  It existed before Clinton made his "I'm
not running for President in 92" to Arkansas voters.  They've worked
hard to build up a rep among people interested in the subject.

They've asked Clinton to stop trading on their name.  He's
blown them off.

Even Joe Biden had the decency to stop using cribbed slogans when he
was exposed, and the cribbee didn't object to his use.

Why is Clinton so bent on demonstrating that he'd do anything
to win?

-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:         Sat, 22 Aug 1992 07:45:12 EST
From:         Diane Alexander <alexandd@GVSU.EDU>
Subject:      Say What??!?
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

   Hello,

   I just signed up for this list yesterday and I've been trying to figure
   out what the heck Pat Buchanan meant when he said, "We want to take
   back our culture."  Does anyone know? If this is familiar territory,
   please e-mail me directly. Now I'm NOT calling Mr. Buchanan the N word,
   but it did sound suspiciously like something I heard in a newsreel from
   Berlin circa 1939.

   I probably should have listened to the news better, but I was watching
   the RNC on Comedy Central. BTW, did anyone see the clip they got from
   the Letterman staff that showed VP Quayle chowing down rudely on a salad
   while President Reagan gave a speech? It was from the "mid-80's" and it
   was hilarious.

   I'm really enjoying this list!

   Thanks in advance,

   Diane Alexander
   alexandd@gvsu.edu

   "A pessimist is an optimist with experience."
            -Chuck Daly, Ex-coach, Detroit Pistons
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:04:53 -0400
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: apologies for the last post,
              and maybe even a little politics, too

>What do you mean by "existence precedes essense?"  Is this another
>of those stupid Calvin Klein perfume commercials?

Well, we can certainly spot the ones who slept through "Intro to
Philosophy." B)

>--Missy P 2 B

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU