HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: _IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 10:40:00 -0400
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: meaningless phrases

From Missy P 2 B:
>
>Can you list 3 specific things your learned in college (in the classes,
>not in the "atmosphere") that had a real value to you later in real life?
>

        1.  All history contains unavoidable bias, whether latent or
        recognized and whether inconsequential or tainting.

        2.  Because of the biases of historians and because of the constant
        revelation of historical sources, interpretations of history change
        over time.

        3.  History is often abused in political discourse.

        Now, a word about this "atmosphere" thing.  I would argue that the
atmosphere of educational life, much like this list, allows one to "test the
intellectual waters" with one's thoughts.  I have learned much in the informal
"bull sessions" within the history department.  Case in point:  Dr. Trevor
Wilson (an Austrialian WWI historian) acknowledges the importance of the
"Mycroft's Crowd" (a group of us who met with him at a local watering hole
after each class meeting of his graduate seminar) in fleshing out his thoughts
on various interpretations.

        I have learned much from less than intellectual settings as well,
namely:

        1.  Unless you look really good in pink, wash your colors in cold
        water.

        2.  Never, NEVER, **NEVER** compare ANYTHING that your wife/fiancee/
        girlfriend does with how your mother does it.  When we first started
        dating, Diane (my wife, for you newcomers) spent most of a hot Saturday
        afternoon baking my favorite type of cookie:  M&M Cookies.  When she
        finished, I made an OBSERVATION -- not a judgment or a critique, simply
        an observation.  I said that WHEN MY MOM bakes them, she doesn't
        grind up the M&Ms, but rather leaves them whole.  Big mistake, and a
        valuable real life education.  This tidbit, unfortunately, took
        repeated lessons, but Diane married me anyway.


-------------
Mike McCarthy
Marshall Univ. History Dept.
Huntington, WV 25755, USA
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.Edu
YEA003@MARSHALL.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:51:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rape; violation, sex or whatever...

On Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:35:42 EDT Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
> >Ahh, but just because you feel you are violated doesn't mean you are,
> >or if it does, then the same applies to abortion...if a baby feels he
> >is murdered, he is murdered.
> >-Travis
>
>   Actually, neither.  The States, after all, are the ones
> who should decide if you have been violated or not.  (I suspect
> that no dead baby feels anything.  No dead adult, either.  But
> you should ask the RI General Assembly to be sure.)

YES, THAT'S IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   THE STATES SHOULD DECIDE!!!!!
THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO SAY FOR HOW MANY POSTS NOW!!!!!!!!!!
AND THE SAME APPLIES TO ABORTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>   So, Travis, how smart do you feel you are?
Weewy, weewy, smart.

>                                             -Tim
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:52:28 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: morals

 *** Resending note of 08/28/92 12:12

 > Like it or not, homosexuality is perversion.  Homosexuals should never be
 > allowed custody of a child. (are we becoming friends yet?)
 >
 > ---Robert

 >>        Before making comments, I would like to express this argument
 >>in logical form.  Please tell me if I am mistaken in expressing the
 >>form of your argument as follows:
 >>
 >>        1) Homosexuality is a perversion.
 >>        2) No person who has a perversion should be allowed custody of
 >>                a child.
 >>        3) Therefore, no homosexual should be allowed custody of a
 >>                child.

 ...stuff deleted
 >>                                      Richard A. Fyfe
 >>                                      rf35@umail.umd.edu

 Rather than box myself in and take a broadside, we'll play this out on a
 "for instance" basis.  I stand by "homosexuals should not be allowed to
  adopt".  Pick any justification you like.

 Someone, maybe you, asked about atheists adopting.  My choice is NO.
 However, good can come triumph over evil, witness Madelyn Murray O'hare.
 One of her children is an evangelist.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:47:49 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
              28 Aug 1992 12:23:08 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET

Robert, I want you to know that even as we speak (er...type)
you are gathering votes.

>> I ask this for the nth time.  What use other than birth control
>> does abortion have????  What does it mean to say "The use of abortion
>> as a from of birth control must be stopped"??? As opposed to what
>> other use of abortion that seems to be OK to you?

> Abortion is NOT ( N O T ) OK!  I said, I am willing to agree to abortion
> in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother.  I also said that I could
> not justify (morally) my willingness to do so.  Abortion is MURDER in ALL
> cases.

I understood that part.  Now tell me why would you allow "MURDER"
in cases of rape, incest, and life of the woman?

>> Then why would you allow it in the cases of rape, incest, and life
>> of the woman?
>> KAT

> To stop the HOLOCAUST.  Clear enough?

Huh?  How would allowing abortions stop the holocaust?

There was at least ten votes for you just for that statement,
keep it up, Robert.     :-)

> ---Robert

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:52:55 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: quick response - vote for me everybody

>From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
>
> Jamie,
>
> I didn't go along with the logic because it wasn't exactly what I said.
> Had I given absolute approval of his little equation, I was going to
> take a major onslaught about perversion.  I don't see anything wrong
> with the answer I gave.

Of COURSE it wasn't exactly what you said.
Richard wanted to know whether his schematization was accurate.
He wasn't asking whether it was exactly what you said.

The answer you gave was that Richard could pick any justification
he wanted. You declined to say what you think the justification for
discrimination against homosexuals is. I'm not surprised that
you don't see anything wrong with that answer.

> If you want to know where I stand on something, ASK.  Don't try to
> manipulate me.

Richard asked. He asked what the justification was for discrimination
against homosexuals. You wouldn't tell him. Shhh. It's a big secret.
If we told anyone what the justification is, they might find something
wrong with it!

> At the risk of loosing the election, I do think rape is a violation of
> one's body, male or female.  I also think it should be considered a
> capital offense.

Oh yeah, I remember. Robert also has views about capital punishment
for which he offers no justification.
No, wait, he DID offer (what he seems to think is) a justification,
namely, "Because it's the right thing to do."

Keep plugging away, Robert. Travis may be dropping out of the running.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 10:48:30 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Order restored

 *** Resending note of 08/26/92 06:50
 From Jamie
 > >"G"olly, Robert, if someone is bound by my personal lack of faith,
 > >that is quite a limitation. My personal lack of faith is boundless.

 You've repeatedly made that quite evident.


 > >In any case, if I have to listen to some authority on god's relation
 > >to logic, I think I'll go with St. Thomas before I listen to "R"obert.

 > If St. Thomas actually said that "G"od was bound by logic, then he was
 > wrong.  Sorry if that bothers you.

 >>Again, if I have to listen to an authority (and St. Thomas actually
 >>gave arguments!), I guess I'll continue to believe St. Thomas rather
 >>than Robert. Sorry if that bothers you.

 It doesn't bother me a bit.  But why the switch?  I thought you only
 listened to yourself.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 09:48:40 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: To Missy: On Wrongness
              3 Sep 1992 09:52:00 EDT from <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>

Richard:

What you are saying, then, is that good is determined by physical
chemistry and biology.  So, if a society is populated by people
with faulty brain chemistry and no aversion to, say, murder and
mayhem, it is perfectly moral for that society to allow those
things to go on unchecked.  Is that what you are saying?

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:33:51 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      "J"amie "G"

> Jamie,

> Do you never tire of twisting other's comments?  Admittedly, you are
> a master of the technique.  I believe you missed your calling.  You
> should have worked for the State Department.  They love guys that can
> talk for hours without making any sense.  Does some college offer a
> course in advanced nonsense?  Do you teach it?

Well, he teaches Philosophy at Brown University and has a bookshelf
that impresses me. I personally find that, after reading any amount
of philosophy, my ability to spew prodigious amounts of pseudo-
intellectual drivel increases exponentially.

> I need EVIDENCE that you are real, so I can decide whether to laugh at
> your postings or cry because my favorite comedian doesn't exist.

Do you accept anectdotal evidence from a disinterested third party?

> ---Robert
> "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Don't leave the house if there is nothing left to live for
Stay in bed and rot.
              --Love, Calvin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:21:27 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Boing

>From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>

>Again it was stated...
>
>>Right. But it appears that most people don't agree with her.
>
>Really????  Have you asked most people, are you sure about what most
>people in the country, state, county, town or your own city block has
>said???

I don't have to ask most people, because the CBS/Times poll gives
us information about what most people think. That's what polls are
for, you know.

>Nobody is going to know just who is voting for who until the day
>after the election, because as long as the campaign continues everyone should
>stay off the 'pollercoaster' ride, or at least don't take them seriously.

Wrong.
No one is EVER going to know just who is voting for whom. We'll know
HOW MANY people vote for whom, approximately, on the evening of
Election Day.

But we know what people think NOW, from the polls.

>The day after the election is the only time when the press cannot lie about the
>polls, because that's when the wild-and-crazy percentages become solid votes.

You think the press lies about polls?
What is this, a conspiracy theory?

>What people should ask is 'Why aren't you voting this year?'

Sure, that would be interesting, I agree.

>'Who was John Anderson's running mate in 1980?'  I couldn't remember if he even
>had one.

That's eerie. I asked this myself, about two months ago. I never got
an answer. Until today. Way to go, Missy.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Original_cc:  HOUSSAH5
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 11:21:00 +0200
From:         HOUSSAH5@EGAUCACS.BITNET
Subject:      RE:Re: Changing topic??

In his posting Andy says:
> The situation in Bosnia is different.....
>They are a group of soldiers carrying guns, not wearing uniforms,...
>There are no equipment or installations to attack....


With all respect to your point of view, I think that there is something
that you are overlooking. When the international forces wanted to push
Irakis out of Kuwait, they did not start by hitting Iraki forces occupying
Kuwait. Their prime action were air raids over Baghdad, Irak.
Using the same philosophy, stopping the Bosnian massacre would require
(at least as a first stage) raiding Serbia, not Bosnia.
This would hit supplies and fortifications without which Serbian forces
in Bosnia cannot survive and will eventually have to withdraw. Let's face
it, if the US and international community want to kick Serbs out of
Bosnia, they have all the power of doing so with minimal casualties.
The fact is that they think that this time, there is nothing worth moving
for...

-Gilbert
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, 2 Sep 1992 16:15:04 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      This week's Chronicle . . .

. . . of Higher Education includes the education-related planks of the
Republican platform.  I'm passing along some of them, with my own questions
/commentary included.  I'll do my *very* best not to take anything out of
context.  Trust me :)

1.  On the aspect of federal regulation, I found the following:  "We should
increase flexibility from federal regulation."  "Too many government and
union rules have burdened our schools."
 --- OK, so I get the idea :)

2.  On the role of schools vs. families:  "Schools should be -- as they
have been traditionally -- academic institutions.  Families and communities
err when by neglect or design they transfer to hte school responsibilities
that belong in the home and in the community.  Schools were created to help
and strengthen families, not to undermine or substitute for them."

    And, for clarification, later in the text I found, after a passage
describing the rampant violence and promiscuity kids are exposed to, "This
undermines the authority of parents, the ones most responsible for passing
on to their offspring a sense of right and wrong. . . if children grow to
adulthood reflecting not the values of their parents but the amorality with
which they are bombarded, those who send such messages cannot duck
responsibility."

    So parents, not schools, are responsible for instilling a sense of
right and wrong -- morality, if you will.  Now we get to the fun part :)

3.  Specific recommendations:
    a)  "we oppose programs in public schools that provide birth control or
abortion services or referrals."  No problem -- consistent with the role of
schools.
    b) "we encourage abstinence education programs with proven track
records in protecting youth from disease, pregnancy, and drug use."  Hmmmm.
 Isn't that the parents' job?  Isn't that federal interference?
    c)  "Education designed to curb the spread of (AIDS) should stress
marital fidelity, abstinence, and a drug-free lifestyle."  Same as above.
    d)  "We also advocate recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools
as a reminder of the principles that sustain us as one nation under God."
(This last after an explanation that, although government should "remain
neutral toward particular religions, . . . we must not remain neutral
toward religion itself or the values religion supports."

I know platforms don't necessarily mean much, but shouldn't they at least
be internally consistent?  Each of these recommendations looks, to me, like
a rule/regulation -- and the platform says we have too many of those.  They
also seem to contradict the fundamental premise that parents, not schools,
are supposed to take responsibility for values and morals.

What do y'all think?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:09:00 CDT
From:         Pam Leader <SYSPL@UOKMVSA.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

   HURRAH for Man, the Hunter!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >I am sure that you do not believe that protection/killing of animals
> >is what environmental protection is all about.
>
> I believe that the distinctions that Leader wants to make are artificial.
>
  Then you do believe that protecting game is adequate protection of the
    environment.? I'm not making a distinction. Habitat protection is
    a small PART of the picture. There is a wide world outside the
    hunting range, you know.
> >There are people eating
> >contaminated fish, children developing brain tumors and leukemia from
> >exposure to toxic waste, increasing numbers of people every day are
> >getting sick from the air they breath, large areas of coastal waters
> >are being dessimated from oil spills and other contamination,
> >forests are dying from acid rain, whole countries are suffering from
> >famine because of soil degradation resulting from cutting down TREES,
> >solar radiation increases due to holeS in the ozone layer resulting
> >in skin cancer becoming as common as pimples,etc. etc. the list goes
> >on and on.
>
> Again, Leader distorts the direction and some effects, and assumes
> that "environmentalists" have had effects they haven't had.
>
 Are you saying that you don't believe thes things(list of environmental
  problems) are true? I'm not making this stuff up. You obviously read
  more sources than just your E-Mail. I'm just trying to make the
  point that there are alot of MAJOR environmental problems that are
  more important than the availability of animals for sport killing.

> Today's factoid; 80% of the Superfund money goes to lawyers and their
> staffs, and that's one of the major successes of environmentalists.
 I won't dispute your 80% figure. Why are you saying this is a success
 of environmentalists? Just because the Republican administration has
 successfully wasted 80% of the Superfund money doesn't mean that
 environmentalists should give up trying to save the environment.

> Socking the citizens of Love Canal, who elected the govt that decided
> to build houses on a chemical dump and seized land to do it, would
> have been more effective, but not the sort of press that
> "environmentalists" like.
>
 I agree with the first part. Citizens need to become more aware and
  responsible for their own stupidity. As for the second part, I'm an
  environmentalist and I agreed with the first part. What sort of press
  are you implying that the environmentalists were advocating in this
  instance?
> -andy
> --
> UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
> ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

 Truly,
   Pam
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:00:26 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: morals

>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

>This is an issue I think might be grounds for a meeting of the minds.
>Changing adoption law is a very important concern for everyone.

Indeed.
In fact, I believe there is an organization called "Common Ground,"
composed of pro-lifers and pro-choicers, arm-in-arm, instead of
up-in-arms. Argh, I just read about this, but I can't recall where.
Anyway, adoption and education about pre-natal health are two
of their main concerns.

If no one else knows about it, I'll try to remember where I saw it.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:06:00 CDT
From:         Pam Leader <SYSPL@UOKMVSA.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Gore on the Environment

> > Was the pollution coming from the trees?
>
> Yes.  LA was known as a "smoky" basin before there were cars.  Nature
> isn't benign.
>
 Was the tree "smoke" affecting the trees' or birds' health?

>
> Really?  How many hunting licenses and tags has Leader bought?  (Hint:
> a "0" response demonstrates that "think" doesn't translate to action.)
>
 I'm not interested in killing trees or animals. What does this have to
 to with environmental activism? Besides, I never claimed to be an
 activist...except when I vote.

> > It's very much related to the philosophy that everyone on the planet(at leas
> > all Americans) can be rich. This philosophy was explained to me, by
> > the  way, by young WASP Republicans during the Reagan administration.
> > (p.s. sorry for resorting to personal priorities)
>
> Said WASP is correct.  It isn't a zero-sum game.  We can't do it with
> our current population.
>
 This response clarifies alot. I suppose if we could eliminate all the
 "undesirables", the few who remain could be rich.  This fits right in
 with your pro-abortionist stance.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:31:01 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Make My Day (Jamie)
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              26 Aug 1992 18:11:24 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU >

On Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:11:24 EDT K=A*T said:
>
>First Sue Clark answers a post and now Robert did something
>actually useful.  It must be a miracle.  :-)


Careful how you use that word...it might encourage some into believing
they are making headway on you!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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