HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:53:13 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: MacPhils signature
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              28 Jul 1992 13:49:39 EST from <GSPIEGEL@BSA1.KENT. EDU>

On Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:49:39 EST Greg `TwoTone' Spiegelberg said:
>}When ambidextrous people can't do it right, we do it left.
>}
>}MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
>
>I was a bit slow to reason this out but the above statement is
>incorrect.
>
>Ambidextrous people are ambidextrous because they can do things with
>both hands therefore if you can't do it with your right but can with
>your left you are not ambidextrous and vice versa.

"Can't" can mean any number of things...remember "a word can mean what
I want it to..."  Your context appears to be "lack of ability or
dexterity".  What if it's because one hand is already busy doing something
else?  I am sure other explanations can be presented if need be.

>Don't worry it's just me being picky.
                                -----

Remember, Greg, if your nose goes on strike, picket!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
When ambidextrous people can't do it right, we do it left.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Date: Thursday, 23 Jul 1992 15:14:00 EDT
From: <U233A@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: need address

    could someone send the address for the governors office
of arkansas, bill clinton.  thanks.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:18:05 EDT
From:         MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Subject:      Re: Entrepreneurship Chinese Style
              27 Jul 1992 09:14:43 EST from <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>

From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>

> But I already knew this.  I chose not to provide a ................... and
> my statement has not lost any degree of fact in light of your information.

You know it is one thing to make a point, it is another to make the
same point by using the words of your debater.

It is amazing that the above it exactly how I feel most of the time
when you nit-pick my posts.

POLITICS was a better list /c Jay and /s MacPhil.  Just kidding!

> MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu

--KAT
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Questions, questions
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:17:55 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

[I paraphrase questions from a few different people:]

> If there is a disagreement about whether the "life" of a fetus deserves equal
> protection, if we don't know, shouldn't we err on the side of saving a life?

With all the things there are in the world to worry about, all the possible
things that could unexpectedly go freakishly wrong every instant of every day 
and destroy life, wouldn't it be more realistic and pragmatic to put our 
energies into something we _know_ will have positive meaning for someone who is
real and suffering, as opposed to helping a theoretical, hypothetical being?  
And if the question of that possible ("we don't know," remember?) life is 
personally so pervasive that you choose not to abort an unwanted pregnancy, you
are free to do so, that is allowed.  But can't you recognize this as a personal
decision that the individual woman must make alone?

> Why can you be charged with manslaughter if you push a woman down the stairs
> and cause her to miscarriage?  Doesn't that make a fetus a protected life?

I would say that's the work of the Religious Right.  Similar to claiming child
abuse if a pregnant woman uses drugs.  I think these laws are both silly and
dangerous.

> I'm tired of that double-standard which says that pregnancies are only the
> woman's problem?  It took two to cause it.  The father should be forced to
> support it.

I agree that there is a double-standard.  Some people want to prevent women
from aborting unwanted pregnancies but then ignore it when the fathers walk
out.  Some people want to be able to choose abortion if they want to even if
the fathers don't, but then they expect that the father must support it, if a
child is born, even if the father wanted to abort it.  I think that the right
for a woman to choose abortion is inalianable and I think that the father must
share in the medical costs of an abortion if that is the woman's choice.  
However, the father should _not_ have to pay for a woman's decision _not_ to
give the child up for adoption--_that_ should be a _completely_ _shared_
_decision_, and a man should _not_ be forced to pay for _the_ _woman's_ choice 
in this matter (herein lies a much overlooked double-standard).  Of course, 
visitation rights should be tied to child support.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Die for oil, sucker!             |          Kai Alexis Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 25 Jul 1992 11:30:39 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Intentions v. Effects
              22 Jul 1992 12:22:04 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>>> Effect always matters, intentions rarely do, especially if the bad
>>> effect doesn't result in change in action.

>> If you knock down my morning coffee by accident I won't get
>> upset.  On the other hand if you do it purposefully I'll be
>> really upset.

> So?  KAT assumes that that isn't one of the exceptions and not
> considering why it might be one.  However, the spillee is soaked
> either way; the spiller's intent only affected said spillee's mental
> state.

> .........

> Suppose I spill coffee on KAT every day, but I'm trying not to.  (No
> deception; I'm really trying to avoid spilling coffee, but I'm failing
> miserably.)  At what point does my intent become irrelevant?  Does the
> answer change if I'm spilling without intent to spill, but I don't
> really care if I spill either.

Why did you feel the need to change my example?  I have no
problem with you modifying my example and present it as yours.
I have no problem with responding to your example but why don't
you first respond to my example.

I hope we are not wasting our times quibbling over semantics
(again).  So we are talking about intentions v. effects or more
appropriately intentions AND effects.  OK?

Are you saying that intentions have no effect on effects?  Of course
I have to agree with you on that.  What did you mean when you
said "intentions rarely matter?"  Matter to what, effects?

So you want to hire a body guard (you have many enemies).
Two guys who are friends and really want to kill YOU apply.
While you are  interviewing  them  one  is  in front of you and
one is in the back.  The guy in front of you draws a gun and
takes a shot at you.  For some reason he misses you and hits
his friend.  Now, what are you gonna do about this situation:

      A) The guy killed your enemy, that is the effect, you
         don't care about the intention, you hire him anyway.

      B) The guy intended to kill you, that is the intention,
         you don't care about the effect, you turn him over to
         the police.

Please let's not quibble over definitions.  Intentions have no
effect on effects.  However, intentions are the major indicator
for projecting whether the person would commit similar acts in
the future.

> -andy

--KAT
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:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:21:15 -0400
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: More on olympics

>Ten million dollars from the POST OFFICE?  The POST OFFICE?
>Now, if we're talking about the one on the Hill.....how many drugs
>do you have to deal to sponsor the Olympics?

Why don't you ask George Bush, after all he has been a member of the
covert community that uses the importation and sale of drugs like
a demented bake-sale to fund militias, election campaigns, assassinations
and other covert activities - *he*, if anybody should know.


>Your tax dollars at (not much) work....

Nope, this is part of the wonder of "Privatization," can't you just wait
till they privatize the school system?

>                                       --Missy Prez 2 B

-other aNdY - cynic at large
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: Politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"Politics@ohstvma"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:44:00 CST
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      The theme of men's magazines ...

You're going to get laid ... p.3
Here's how to get laid, p4, 6, 8, 10-44, 85-140
Here's who you might get to sleep with ...p 45-60

Give us a break, all mags catering to a specific point of view will have
pieces that support that view, and besides, a damned great many men ARE
evil, including this writer, all too often. Just ask my wife! VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:31:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: personal liberties and high resolution broadcasting

please accept my condolences on the sudden departure of your running mate.
he was certainly a worthy opponent.

sheeeesh- dead again, must be a real downer.

again, my sympathies.

-linda suE saboE  (going now to chg. deadn file name)
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:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:40:52 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: dumping Dan: myth or reality?

>Hi, y'all.
>I know we've touched on this before, so excuse me if I've been too dense to
>recognize the answer to this question :)  My d.p. and I were talking about
>the possibility of Bush dumping Quayle.  I said that I thought that would
>be a bad move, as many conservative voters seem to like Quayle, and are
>sticking with Bush largely for that reason.  He suggested that dumping
>Quayle would be a good move if Quayle were replaced by a Kemp or Dole-type.
>He argued that the more right-leaning conservatives would stick with such a
>ticket simply because they'd have no other choice.  Such a ticket might,
>however, woo back some of the Regan Democrats from the Perot camp.
>
>What do y'all think?
>
>Thanks
>Kerry

I have a feeling that there are many voters who would see this as
Bush "ditching" Quayle in a last-minute and desperate attempt
to win his bid for re-election.

I think that Quayle hurts Bush if he stays on, but if Bush dumps him,
he is hurt all the more.

-j.b.
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:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:33:00 -0400
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Levi Strauss and the Boy Scouts of America

This is a file that was just forwarded to me that's definitely worth
some attention --Julie

*************************************************************************
Lots of times we wonder how we might make a difference towards prejudice
and bigotry.  But so many things take lots of time or money.

Here's a free way we can let voices be heard, and it won't take any more
than two or three minutes of your time.

    Steve  (Compu$erve: 76260,57)
===========

(Received from internet hub ENET.DEC.COM on 7/23/92)

Levi Strauss decided last month to no longer give Corporate donations to the
Boy Scouts of America because the Boy Scouts discriminate against gay
people.

If you wish to call Levi Strauss to give them your opinion about
their action, their 800 number is included below.  Their toll-free number
has been pounded by groups like the American Family Association and other
conservative groups.

If you are at all in support of their decision to terminate funding
because of the Boy Scout's sexual discrimination policy, please give their
Consumer Affairs hotline a call at 800/872-5384.

The man I talked to was delighted to hear from me, and asked very
strongly that we get people to call in as soon as possible as they are
getting slammed pretty hard by the conservative groups.

They will ask your name and phone number so they can call you back if they
need to take action or disconnected.  They will also ask for your zip code
for statistical demographics.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE call if you agree, and forward to anyone who
you think might be supportive.

                        Thanks!
---
 ~ MegaMail 2.10 #0:Visualize Whirled Peas

PCRelay:LUNATIC -> #1282 RelayNet (tm)
4.11               Lunatic Fringe~Plano,TX~214-422-2936~USR DS


******************************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:12:32 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Excused or Excuses
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:48:15 CDT Sue Clark said:
>Plead the fifth???  At a time when the public trusts the Congress as far
>as they can toss both the House and Senate of the wings of the Capital build-
>ing.  This is hardly the time for  anyone in the Congress to claim a 'waiver'
>and scream harrassment.  The three call this a 'fishing expedition'.  It is
>this kind of dodging that makes the public more and more angrier with their so-
>called 'representatives'.

>The reports are that congressmen or staff members had laundered campaign funds
>by using the funds to but stamps, then had resold the stamps to the post office
>and pocketed the cash.

I'm not sure the citizenry are all that upset /c Rosty.  No matter his
actions, he's continually reelected such that the seniority system has
placed him in a position of great power /cin Congress.  They've overlooked
his payment of rent to his own family for his headquarters in Chicago
(legal via a grandfather clause), so I'm sure they'll overlook this
alleged transgression.

P.S.

It's interesting they won't cooperate now.  All of the parties
now refusing cooperated /c early segments of the same investigation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
When ambidextrous people can't do it right, we do it left.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 09:45:20 GMT

KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET (Kerry Stephenson) writes:

>No, we've just decided to stop beating a dead horse.  Since none of us
>*are* Dan Quayle, we can come to no consensus as to what he *meant*.

I think the problem is even _he_ doesn't know what he means.

Therefore he really should, like most politicians, shut the f*ck up about
something he knows nothing about.

P.
-- 
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
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:02:00 CST
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Views from the cave ...

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:04:00 EDT
From: Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject: RE: cost vs. return

>Sex outside of marriage should be a jailable offense. -Travis

Those would legislate the morality of the whole from a narrow point
view ought to be jailed, too, but it isn't going to happen. You're
bucking the tide of reality, my boy. 90% of the sex, 90% of the
humans produced since the first some 5 million years ago occurred
without the sanction of "marriage." In many states, until fairly
recently, and in a few still, the act of sex WAS the act of marriage.
Take your sanctimonious views back under the rock you came from - we
would have 75 million people in this country alone in jail if your
view were to prevail. Get real! VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:21:12 CDT
From:         FRED <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      GE - WE BRING GOOD THINGS TO LIFE

I saw an article on the communist news network (CNN - a little tribute
to the gone but not forgotten JSS) that general electric has agreed to
pay 70 million dollars in fines for overcharging the pentagon on various
projects. I have two problems with this.

1. Why do we allow cost overruns in the first place? Couldn't we pass
legislation that says what you bid is what you get?

2. Why isn't anyone going to jail? I have an ideological problem with
20 year sentences for stealing $20 with a gun but no time served for
bilking the government or private investors out of huge sums of money.

If our system of justice is truely equal then why don't white collar
criminals spend time behind bars in REAL jails?
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:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:10:52 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Our beloved government and its duties Abroad

Here is a new question:  What type of foreign policy
should our government pursue?

There are calls for what amounts to isolationism and
some others call for what could end up being more
"manifest destiny"/imperialism.

I believe it is Brzenzki who supports a "selective global
commitment".  This may not be his exact wording, but the
concept is basically as follows.

The US should narrowly define its national interests and
defend these and these alone.  These interests could be
defined in many different terms including economic, but
the key is that this doesn't include the entire globe.

We should not consider ourselves the guardians of Democrasy
and therefore should not pursue a foreign policy which takes
us to war in order to it.

I believe that this is the stance that I support.  Are
there any who think that there is something better?

-j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:41:11 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      questions for tkidd

Travis, your posts show a lot of youthful idealism and enthusiasm but
leave me with a few questions.

1. I was married for ten years when my wife decided she wanted a divorce.
Even though I didn't want the divorce would I be unable to have sex
again under your no sex outside of marraige proposal? How long of a jail
term for sex? How will you pay for the jail space?Why would you be in
favor of a judge telling adults what is best for them but not children?

2. What was anita hill's motive for lying?

3. Are you willing to live in a society where the thought police follow
you around to be sure that you are not thinking unclean thoughts?

4. How would you handle sex in advertising?

You seem to be missing a very basic point: The child's accusation must
have a basis in law or it will be thrown out of court. I assume that you
are pro-life and want a judge to make sure that the baby is born but then
the parent's can do whatever they want. I'm afraid that sane, normal,
educated parents are probably a minority. The number of children living
in poverty is pushing 20%.

Do you happen to remember a little incident involving the poisoning of
hundreds of children by their parents because they thought some guy
was showing them the path to enlightenment in jonestown?
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, 30 Jul 1992 19:48:51 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      not everybody does it, but everybody should

hey. hi there.  um, i wasn't here for the original tkidd post on the sex
gestapo (hmmm.  sounds suspiciously like a game that i...well, maybe that's
a story for another list), so i'm not too sure what exactly he said.
as i understand it, he would make it a criminal offense to have sexual
intercourse with someone other than a spouse, right?
okay, travis, questions...
a) would this be, like, a felony?  or would you just give out tickets?
   (this might work well at local lovers' lanes.  two, two, two violations
    in one!  "...son, both your car and your {expletive deleted} are
    illegally parked.  you go on home now.")
b) what constitutes a spouse?  kirby mc cauley sent me a little card that
   declares me a minister of the church of universal truth and light.
   anybody need a wedding?
c) travis, i hate to sully your gleefully pornographic little thoughts about
   relations between the sexes with, you know, reality or anything, but
   (get this!)...some women and men *do* sleep in the same room...maybe
   even (giggle) in the same bed...and *don't* have sex.  like, wow.

i find this proposal distasteful in the extreme.  it's none of your darn
business how i run my personal affairs, it's none of the darn *government's*
business with whom i have sex or *when* i do (do you have some sort of
amnesty plan, for folks who later marry their sex partners?).  get a life
(...or, alternatively, get my born-again and ultra-virginal sister's number.
you two are sure to be a hit at the ice-cream social).

                        * * * anneliese "is her nasty, spiteful self again" l.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:47:00 CST
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Political ad ...

Evelyn/Val - The Balanced Ticket, the Ticket of Reasonableness! Vote for
the candidates who are not name-callers, shoe fetishists, ilk-lovers,
suverted by Irishmen or M00se Illuminarti, caught up in proving archane
matters like the existance of God, or whether Schroedinger's cat is or is
not in existance. We are willing to reason with anyone anout any matter,
and come together with a reasonable solution to any    (about)  problem.

The DuncaN/ValentiN Campaign, Abbie Hoffman, Secretary-Treasurer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU