HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:31:57 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [abortion case]

>From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET

>    Justice Scalia then says that interstate travel is not strong
>enough a right to be protected here since it was not "aimed at" by
>Operation Rescue.  This is questionable since they know the reality of
>the travel needed for abortions and that travel is connected sadly too
>much with the abortion right, especially in the area in question.  He
>agrees that limiting the right of abortion is "aimed at" by Operation
>Rescue, but that "deprivation of that Federal right (whatever its
>contours) cannot be the object of a purely private conspiracy."  Why
>not?

Because that Federal right is a right against the government.
Scalia says, plausibly, that OpRes cannot be conspiring to
deprive women of rights they hold against the government.

O'Connor and others rest their argument on a different
part of the law. OpRes, she says, is deliberately rendering
local authorities incapable of protecting citizens. The KK law
was explicitly designed to bring federal authorities into the
scene when local authorities are overwhelmed. Scalia seems
to have no argument to rebut O'Connor's point.

>    The issue of freedom of speech comes up here and such laws have
>some potential to infringe upon it.  This is not the case here.
>Operation Rescue can protest, shout "baby killer", show pictures of
>fetuses and the like, but they can't block the way into the clinics.
>The lawful methods make the experience a harder one than it already
>is, but they are legit.  Unless Operation Rescue groups want liberals
>to go out and do the same to their churches since they infringe on
>rights of women (and often on homosexuals, unwed mothers, etc.), they
>should stop these acts.  The bombing and stink bombs/vandalism is even
>a worse infraction. They remind us of slavery, but John Brown's
>attempt to lead a slave uprising was a wrong means for a good ends,
>something anti-abortion rights groups should remember.  Free speech
>doesn't justify the present actions, just as it doesn't allow us to
>block the way for KKK members to their meeting place.

All true, but none of it mentioned in Bray, because in Bray there
was no argument that the KK law was unconstitutional.

Jamie, relieved to once again find someone who actually
       understands what Justices are saying rather than
       doing a wordsearch on the texts.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:04:12 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: A Reply to J. Fisher's 18 January post on Iraq ...
              22 Jan 1993 17:16:04 PST from <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

On Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:16:04 PST Jonathan Fisher said:

>Yes.  Remember this?  Iraq _lost_ a war.  He either signed the
>cease-fire agreement or the war continued.  He signed an agreement
>stating that he wouldn't fly any planes over designated areas.

I said this twice before: when you lose a war you lose much
more than that.

>But, if the UN (or the US) actually wanted three countries to come out
>of Iraq, it would have been pretty easy to force it.  Especially right
>after the gulf war.

Oops, there goes Bush's rhetoric that no border should be changed
by force.  (Not to mention that Serbia has been doing that for
the past year or so.)

>I don't think so.  As I've said, Iraq lost the war.  The borders are
>created as to the wishes of the victors.  There is nothing murky.

There is that changing borders by force again.

>Jonathan

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:09:27 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Ronald Reagan lives on
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

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

        Or, like tax cuts, only good when you do it. :)

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:28:06 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh and STAN JACOBS

-T;

No, you miss the point.  Rush doesn't have guests, because the show
is about what RUSH thinks.  It's not about anything else, and it
never claims to be.

He's just a guy that likes to talk and has opinions--often informed,
often acerbic, sometimes just shooting-the-breeze type opinions.
And doing that has made him very, very popular.

Look, you're just mad because you don't like him.  Fine.  Don't you have
friends that you don't agree with, but you like anyway?  Rush has a lot
of fans like that.  And you have friends that you agree with everything
on, and you like being around them.  Rush has a lot more fans like that.

Besides, what's your problem?  He isn't *really* running for President
(some folks just wish he would.)  He doesn't have any policy influence,
he isn't stealing money from the taxpayers or peddling influence or
calling for revolution.  He's just having fun.  And you can't stand it,
because politics isn't *supposed* to be fun, it's supposed to be serious
and heavy and everyone that is intelligent and wise is supposed to
believe things Rush thinks are stupid.  Tough.

It isn't Rush you should be concerned with.  The people who agree with
Rush held those opinions long before the EIB Network ever hit the
airwaves.  The genius part is that Rush articulates what a lot of
people in America feel -- and he does it in a fast-paced, interesting,
and funny format.

For that you should fault him?

As Rush says, "Lighten up."

---NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:56:57 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Playing House

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

They picked Kennebunkport.  Surprise, surprise.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:14:43 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      class discussion

Robert wants to give Billy Bob credit for Sears trashing a bunch of
jobs. Having worked for several years in corporate america, my experience
has been that these decisions are made weeks or even months in advance
of their disclosure to the general public. If you want to say that the
results of the November election triggered the Sears problem you could;
it wouldn't be correct but that's never stopped anybody before.

Would you care to comment on IBM, GM, Silicon Valley job losses between
November 1986 and November 1992? Using the Robert scale of whose to
blame (da prez), the winner must be GHWB. I don't believe that, just
trying to follow your logic.

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:42:59 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      freedonia
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> whoever asked for the quotes from spy asking for our newly elected
> representatives response to the question abt 'what should we be doing
> to stop the ethnic cleansing in freedonia ?' (alternately phrased 'do
> you approve of what we're doing to stop what's going on in freedonia

   i personally fully approve of the ethnic cleansing going on in my
freedonia. those sylvanians coming over the border absolutely *stink*,
and the slobbovians seemingly never heard of soap. and as for the
people who complain about the firehoses being used on the refugees,
the hoses all have those little detergent attachments. we will not
stop until all of them are cleansed.

rufus t. firefly, president for life of freedonia
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:09:59 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Gennifer says: [who cares]!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:28:07 -0400 The Integral Differential said:
>
> Ok, let's see.....are we gonna talk at the gut-level or at the
> beyond a reasonable doubt level?
>
> My gutt feeling is that Clinton DID have something going on with
> Ms. Flowers but the extent of it, I don't know.
My gut feeling is that Clinton DIDN't have anything going on with Ms.
Flowers (although I believe that he did have at least one laison with
someone in '81).
>
> >Did you actually read the transcripts?  Evidently not, but then hardly anyone
> >published them.  Here's an excerpt that was published in The Washington Times
> >on January 28, 1992:
>
> I think Washington TImes is not of the most reliable newspapers
> but I guess it has to do for now.  BTW, the reason papers like
> Washington Post or LA Times did not go with the content of the
> tape (if indeed they didn't) is not that they are pro-Clinton
> but that they were not sure about the authenticity of the WHOLE
> tape.
I'll go further.  The Washington Times is owned by the Rev. Moon. It
is a blatantly biased paper that most people (except Brett') totally
disregard.  And the Post and the Times didn't run the transcripts
_because_ the tapes were doctored.  The doctoring was authenticated
by CNN's audioligist and ABC's.
>
> [The transcript of the tape deleted]
Thank you.
>
> Now, I told you about my gut feeling.  But based on evidence, I am
> not really sure if the tape conclusively proves anything even if it
> was not doctored.
I agree.  Since they went to the effort to doctor the tape, you'd think
that it'd be more clear.  Although Congressman Dornan seemed to think
that it was clear.  He read the transcripts into the house record after
hours.
>
> >Clinton never denied that it was him on the tape, and voice analysts have
> >confirmed that it is his voice.  Clinton even apologized to Mario Cuomo for
> >the remarks made about him.  Everyone just said that it's none of our
 business
> >who Clinton screws, and that we have to "focus on the issues."  But even if
 you
> But Clinton did not *admit* anything either (except the Mario
> reference and that it was basically him on the tape).  And many
> tape-analysts said that the tape had been "doctored"
I responded to this in another post.
>
> >Forwarded by Brett'
>
> --KAT
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:10:30 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rush
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >Ah, I see the problem.  Your macho attack when ridiculed response is
> >predicated on the assumption that I am a fellow, er, fellow (hence,
> >the curious assertion that my girl will be yours within the week.)

>     "A fellow, er, fellow?"  Difference?

"Fellow" can be defined in many ways. Use 1, in this case, is as
an adjective. "Fellow," in this case, implies an equal status. Use
2 is a noun. The phrase "Jamie is a fellow" is primarily assumed
to mean that Jamie is male, although that is not always the case.
(It could mean that Jamie is part of a society or something, but
that is not the implied usage.)

Therefore, the implied uses of "fellow" here translate that phrase
into:

"... predicated on the assumption that I am also a male."

and according to her past posts, that is a wrong assumption.


Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
I belong the _____ generation, but
I can take it or leave it each time
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU,
             @MIZZOU1.missouri.edu:CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:53:52 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Shortest Presidency
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

From _The People's Almanac, #2, (1978) p. 178-179:

From the article "The Other 12th President, David Rice Atchison" -

"Getting Elected"

"Atchison was never elected president of the U.S. He succeeded to the
office by accident - and is renowned for having served as president
for one day. The facts are these: Atchison had been elected president
pro tempore of the U.S. Senate 15 times, and he was president pro
tempore in March, 1849. Pres. James K. Polk spent his last day as
President on March 3, 1849, and as midnight tolled and Sunday, March
4, began, Polk was out of office. (Old rules, the date of
inauguration was changed by the XXth amendment to the Constitution.)
General Zachary Taylor, a staunch Episcopalian, refused to be sworn
in on March 4 because it was Sunday, and preferred to celebrate his
inauguration on Monday, March 5. The U.S. was faced with a full day
gap between presidents. According to the law, when the presidential
and the vice-presidential offices were not filled, the president pro
tempore of the Senate automatically became the president of the U.S.
Since Senator Atchison of Missouri was president pro tempore of the
Senate, he automatically became president of the U.S. for the single
day of March 4, 1849."

"As President"

"What happened during his 24-hour term of office? There was no
domestic or foreign crisis to disturb him. Several Senate colleagues
jestingly suggested policies he should pursue or requested cabinet
posts. But for most of his abbreviated term, Atchison slept. As he
told the St. Louis Globe-Democrat some years later: `I went to bed.
There had been two or three busy nights finishing up the work of the
Senate, and I slept most of that Sunday.'"

"Was He Really President?"

(I will spare you most of this part of the article) " ... the
_Biographical Congressional Directory, ..., in 1913, called Atchison
`the legal President of the United States for one day."

The article also points out that "Atchison unofficially succeeded him
(William R. King) as vice-president and held his position of first in
line of succession from April, 1853, to December, 1854."

The order of Presidential Succession was changed by law, I'm not sure
when, and now the Speaker of the House would succeed if the both the
offices of President and Vice President were vacated, and THEN the
president pro tempore would be next. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:28:54 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The old side step soft shoe
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Brett' clarifies for me that he is only interested in war crimes that
>were committed by the US. I wish you had addressed the point I brought
>up (mining the harbors in Nicarauga) when you answered. Is this a war
>crime? Why or why not? How about forced internment of americans of
>Japanese heritage during world war II? How about bombing runs into
>countries neighboring vietnam when we were not at war with these
>countries?
>
>fred

        I didn't address it because it wasn't a war crime.  It was (as judged
by the World Court) a violation of international law and Nic. sovereignty.
        On a side note, now that the Sandinistas are back in power in
Nicaragua, will they ask for the decision to be reinstated?

        Internment, no.

        Bombing Laos and Cambodia?  No.

        For some correct examples:

        Serbian death/rape camps.

        Iraq gassing the kurds.

Brett'
(It seems that we are using Ramsey's definition :)
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: VAXF::IN%"politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:23:38 -0700
From:         Dom Maddalone <DMADDALONE@UH01.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Monopoly
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >    Golly, what an informative opinion from an anonymous-chicken-shit-brain-
> >dead-non-thinking-zombie-like-drooling-over-another-radio-broadcasting-
> >drooling -
> >slob.   Pretty typical of the audience, I believe.
> >    Anything else you like to inform us of, oh, holy of holies, oh master
> >of anonymousness?

>Judging from your remarks, the target of your ire would appear to be
>about 2 pegs above you.
>
>The roll of the dice... oh, you're on Community Chance.  Take a card.
>
>It says, "For being a pin-headed jerk, tell each lister you're sorry".

    Yes, well, no.   You mean if I think that everybody who believes what
Rush promulgates is wrong, I'm a pin-head and he's only two pegs above me?
Intersting.  I'd expect anyone who likes Limbaugh to be belive himself to
be off and above the peg scale.
    But besides that.  Me argue?  About Rush?  Beyond me.  Sorry.  Rush _never_
uses off color remarks, arrogant remarks, illogical remarks, inconsistent
remarks.  And he never tells his listeners that the opposition is the same
(i.e. pin-headed.)  And, oh, my, castigate an anonymous posting.  My humble
apologies.
    Oh, may Rush have pity on me.
    I have a piece of advice.  Tell me what I have stated is wrong next time.
    And play better Monopoly.  I'd have written "Go directly to Jail."

>---Robert

    Dom Maddalone, dmaddalone@uh01.colorado.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:57:05 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Business Optimism
              25 Jan 1993 17:38:17 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

Better idea to deflate the unemployment figures:

Let's classify people in prison as "employed."  That ought to help some.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:30:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Clinton and JFK

>I read that JFK is Clinton's idol.
>
>Does that means that Clinton is waiting to be killed? Or does it mean something
>different? Could anyone explain me, please?
>
>An ignorant European.



It means that during his early formative years, the first President born
in the 20th Century took office amidst great hopes for the future of the
United States and the world.  Clinton idolized JFK (or perhaps the image of
JFK), and met him when Clinton was 15 or 16.

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

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

Perhaps this was more than you were looking for, but it answers the question.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:48:34 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 12:01 PM
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >>         And Iraq was, right up until the failed coup, a client of the USSR.
> >bzzzt.  Sorry Brett'.  The United States 'tilted' toward Iraq virtually
> >immediately.  We have been supplying Saddam with money and arms for over
> >a decade.  It could also be that they receieved money/arms from the USSR
> >as well.
> >Jonathan
>
>         I eagerly await the list of arms that we (the US) provided.
>
> Brett'
>

As part of the Middle East policy of both superpowers, both the
United States and the Soviet Union supplied arms to both Iran and
Iraq during their entire war.  This was meant to make sure that
neither side became too powerful in the area.

At the end of the Gulf War, the primary reason for leaving Saddam
Hussein in power was *not* an oversight on the part of our fearless
leader (that was Bush, surely not Clinton), but instead, the better
of two evils in the situation.

    1> We could leave him in power, knowing that we could go back
       in and blow up his country and kick his butt any other time we
       ever wanted to as well, or

    2> We could kill him, watch Iraq go into Civil War, disorganized,
       and watch Khomeini of Iran take over the Middle East with the
       hegemony of the largest Middle East power.  It would also be
       considerably more difficult to unite any Arab countries to
       fight Iran, because Khomeini is slightly more intelligent than
       Saddam in his strategic powers.


    Unfortunately, this one CANNOT be blamed on GHWB.  His foreign
policy is the one area where I'll defend him any day...  (and from
the looks of this list, it'll probably be EVERY day...)

--STAN JACOBS
    "In Defense of Richard Nixon", Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, and
several other inappropriately maligned characters.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:dunstan@gec-epl.co.uk>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:32:42 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Al Gore
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

After all the talk from GHWB about Al Gore being My Ozone, can we
expect a more positive approach from the new administration to global
environmental concerns ?

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:31:24 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: new SC ruling
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Maybe this case IS fishy but the Supreme Court ruled for all
>cases.
>--KAT

        As they should have.  "A criminal, having exhausted all other appeal
routes, can not use a new claim of innocence to stay an execution or obtain
another trial."  Would certainly be fair.  It is a rule that a plea of "guilty"
can not be changed once given, isn't it? Or am I  watching too much LA Law? :)

        Specifically about Hererra:
        Now, material evidence is another matter.  As far as I know, all that
can be produced at this point are non-impartial witnesses and hearsay.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU