HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Polling Pitfalls
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:35:12 GMT
Organization: nope
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>Local polls do tend to be badly done. One reason is that they tend
>to be one-day polls. If you do a poll all in one day, or night,
>you get a built-in bias: you haven't reached anyone who isn't
>in that night.
>Of course, the CBS/NYT poll wasn't a local poll.

And, if you don't to call-backs (assuming phone polls), yet get a
different bias.  If you use random digit dialing, you've got a problem
with folks with multiple lines.  If you use listings only, you've got
a problem with unlisted folks.  If you use phones, you miss the
phoneless.  And then there's the problem with liars and the
uncooperative.

The stated margin of error is a LOWER bound on the margin of error; it
isn't an upper bound.  It is based on assumptions that competent
pollsters know to be incorrect.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:29:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: youthful punks

i forgot to add this, robert:

most of the people i know in the military enjoy smoking pot,
but can't because of testing.  they can't use most other
drugs either, so they drink A LOT and they do lsd, which is
not detectable by any tests other than a spinal tap, which
contains risk of paralysis or death, and thus can't be
used as a standard drug testing procedure.

you got any other ideas?

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:48:16 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Make My Day (Jamie)
              26 Aug 1992 17:36:21 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

Regarding the Oklahoma law:

Has this ever been challenged?  Does anyone know if the Supreme
Court has ruled on this issue and if so what they said?  (Not that
we could probably figure it out, but it might be fun to try).

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:15:00 -0900
From:         "ACAD2A::ASCER" <ASCER@ALASKA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: parallel 32

I agree...what is the deal with this???
Could it be a poll question??
Charles
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:55:26 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: is Clinton being anxious? and is NBC being less than

-andy:
>Since standard procedure has been to let the other party get a free
>ride during the convention, that decline is "biz as usual"?

From what I've heard, yes, the decline was "biz as usual."

>When did "the rules" change?  Is there an obligation to tell the other
>side "in time"?  (If the Demos told the repubs well BEFORE the Demo
>convention, the Repubs have no biz whining.)

According to the pundits, the rules changed after the 1988 campaign --
Demo's decided that Dukakis' strategy of not saying anything while being
pounded at the convention didn't work.  I don't know whether the Repubs
knew what the Demo's were planning -- and yes, they should have been told.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 08:48:00 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Deadly Force, We Need Help, Justice??
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:20:47 EST Kerry Stephenson said:
>Jimbo:
>
>No, I do not.  (Where "should" refers to an ideal situation, rather than
>to approved conduct under current law.)

As in the old Black's Law Dictionary definition?
"Should:  ought to but not necessarily will"

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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, 31 Aug 1992 16:35:42 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rape; violation, sex or whatever...

>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.)

  So, Travis, how smart do you feel you are?

                                            -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:58:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: it worked!

hi kerry!

please send platform (size 7 1/2) shoes.
oh-sorry, i meant party platform.

how ya been anyway?

linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:31:21 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: morals

 *** Resending note of 08/31/92 14:27

 >  Oddly enough, "G"od also allows atheists to have kids.  Perhaps
 >he doesn't think it is as bad an idea as you do.  And, after all,
 >don't you think it is His job to control it, and not yours?  Specks
 >and logs and eyes...that's in the Bible, too.
 >                          -Tim

 You must be thinking of someone else.  I don't have anything to do with
 controlling adoption or birth to/by/for atheists.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:44:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Rights, and other comments ...

>So Val, if everyone has a right to live without regulation of the state,
>then what is the state for?  What is democracy for??
>-Travis


     Well, I may not be Val, but here's my view.  Government should mainly
   serve to protect us from each other, mainly through criminal law, and
   to deal in foreign policy.  Of course, people have different definitions
   of what is an infringement on their rights, but I think that government
   as a protector from the injustices that people enact upon each other is
   a decent rule.


           --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:34:32 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Patriotism

>Ironically, many people have died in order to safeguard your right to
>both ridicule them and burn the flag under which they fought.  Not
>to mention your free-speech right to criticize the governmental system
>they dug in their heels to protect.  They may have been right; they
>may have been wrong.  The fact remains that they believed that their
>personal, physical sacrifice was required to protect the families,
>friends, and ideals they held dear.

At least in my mind, the act of burning the American flag is a
cleansing of the flag for the "dirt" our country does, just like
the American Legion burns flags that are physically dirty or worn
out.

Those who are buried in our national cemetaries died for our country.
If they died for a piece of cloth, that was a wasted effort on their
part.

>We do them no honor, nor ourselves elevate, by trivializing their
>lives and their deaths.

We do no honor to those who die for freedom by funding those who
are actively against freedom, but we do that all the time.

>--Missy P 2 B

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Any flat worth a sh*t
was wove from fire in the first place
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:35:50 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: meaningless phrases

>
>
> "It tastes like chicken".

That's what a lot of folks think the first time they try it,
although i have found it to be a lot saltier than chicken, maybe
something in the pork family is more closly related.

And, it is full of protein, so it can't be all bad, right?

And speaking of pork products, I wonder how robert would feel
about non christians adopting children.  Like, Jews, or Muslims,?

jcs

> ---Robert
>
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: What is family values?
Date: 25 Aug 92 13:40:19 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

As far as I can tell:

What the Republicans mean:  rightist xian intolerance.

What the Democrats mean:  pro-social values specific to the positive role of
                              the family in society.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thou art God(dess)!"                       |         Kai Alexis Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: dickson@eskimo.celestial.com (Bill Dickson)
Subject: I'm back, *again*
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:01:48 GMT


Hi everybody.  Trying yet *another* internet server.  This one's been
around for a while, so I'm hoping it's more reliable than the last.

Are you receiving me?

Bill D.

PS - what's my address coming out as?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:45:33 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              25 Aug 1992 15:55:14 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

On Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:55:14 -0400 Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet said:

> I get the feeling that your trying to characterize me as an extreme
> nationalist.  In response, I would point out that an "America First"
> position ( a few years ago ) was considered *patriotic*.  Only recently
> has it been twisted to mean *isolationist*.

That's because the unions got ahold of it and started warping it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:09:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Jamie's Response to my Deadly Force post

> From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
> Subject:      Re: Jamie's Response to my Deadly Force post
> To:           "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020>
>
> >From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
> >
> >Jamie,
> >   Your response to my post was assinine.  I will repond to your dribble
> >in the very near future.
> >
> >Carl-------+
>
> Good job, Carl. You are continuing in Jay's finest tradition.

    Thank you Jamie :-)

>
> Name-calling instead of argument, well done. And to top it off,
> you have misspelled "asinine."

    Name calling?  Since when does attributing adjectives to somone's
    post constitute name calling?  I did not write that you are
    "assinine".

    An argument will be coming soon.  Geez, sorry for misspelling a
    word, or two, since I was in a hurry.  I bet you are perfect.

> Now, your next move in the Sultan tradition is to hope folks will
> forget that you are supposed to "repond" [sic] to my "dribble" [sic]
> "in the very near future." You could say that it was so long that the
) listserv couldn't handle it, for instance.

    I will respond to you, but not immediately.
>
> I'm looking forward to further displays.
>
> Jamie
>
> (Even so, Robert and Carl combined are a poor substitute for the
> Real Thing.)
> (Hey, I've seen Dave's dictionary. It really is huge. I wonder
> if Carl has one, too? If so, does it include the words "asinine"
> and "dribble"?)

   I feel sorry for people who use someone's spelling mistakes as
   a way to elevate themselves.  Actually it discredits the someone.

Carl-------+  I'll reply tomorrow, can you wait that long Jamie?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:34:01 EST
From:         Diane Alexander <alexandd@GVSU.EDU>
Subject:      Fetal citizens
Comments: To: 92price@GW.WMICH.EDU, POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

   What if the conception occured in a foreign land...Does the fetus have
   dual citizenship?


   Diane
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:58:05 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: speed, police, crime, hell
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

All the time I was in Ohio I *never* drove at 55, and never got
stopped either. I thought that you guys treat the 55 like we treat our
70 - driving about 20 over.

At least when our cops are loitering on the motorway they are obvious
so you can slow down in advance. They don't go in for hiding under
bridges.

What I wish *here* is that:

1) They would nick people for speeding in towns. A pedestrian hit at
20 will probably live, at 30 it is about 50/50 and at 40 will almost
certainly be killed.

2) They would allow random breath testing. In Australia I saw cops
hauling in cars at random and breath testing the drivers - so nobody
drinks and drives.

And another thing I couldn't believe: Ohio law is that seat belts are
compulsory. The works we were working at put out publicity in advance
that on a certain date they were going to check how many people were
wearing seat belts. Even with that warning, less than 30% of the
people going through the gate had theirs on. In Britain at least 90%
obey this law.

BTW, the British roads were statistically the safest in the world last
year :-P

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:00:48 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: morals

jcs:

I think it is interesting that you have raised the issue of biracial
adoption.  The prolifers I have studied *appear* (the qualifier is there
because I have not yet run the numbers) to adopt biracially
in numbers disproportionate to their population.  Without the hard
statistics, I can at least say that they tend to adopt outside their
race, and that they tend to adopt children others prefer not to
(disabled children, crack babies, and the developmentally disabled).

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.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:31:51 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: women in the military

Missy J:
>My question is this:  how can we, on the one hand, introduce programs
>to sensitize men to the feelings of women (in reaction to the Tailhook
>scandal, and to lessen the possibility for harrassment and abuse in the
>military) and, on the other, introduce programs to de-senstize them to
>those same feelings in order to improve the effectiveness of our
>infantry?

Maybe we could ask countries that have experience in this area . . .
doesn't Israel use women in combat positions?  On a related note, I read an
article in the Lexington, KY, newspaper about a month ago about how at
least one Navy boot-camp is now training men and women together.  The early
results looked pretty good.  And the woman in charge said something to the
effect of "you'd think we could've figured this out earlier."

Any thoughts?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 10:41:35 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
>
>Since Jamie asked:
>
>Let me first point out again that the aim of this discussion (about
>deadly force) was to try to find out what the *law* said about it,
>not how we all feel about it.

Yes, that was the original aim, I agree. Now Andy F. has filled
us in, at least to my satisfaction (I don't care about the
details so much as the general principles).

But Robert decided to tell us what he would do in the middle
of the night, and asserted (with no argument) that he could
"justify" it easily, and Carl said something like, "I don't
care what the stupid law says, it's WRONG." And in fact I
*am* interested if someone has an interesting argument about
why the law should be changed.

>Nonetheless, the question has been asked, and I will respond.  You
>ask whether a Christian should use deadly force (something something,
>I can't recall.)

Well, essentially, my question was under what circumstances
Christians think that deadly force is justified. I'm not asking
for the circumstances under which you think CHRISTIANS are justified.
I was assuming, perhaps mistakenly, that the justification would
not depend on whether the defender or aggressor was a Christian.
I mean, I HOPE no one is advocating different self-defense
criteria for different religions.

>As an Anabaptist, I cannot use deadly force for any reason.

Oh, wait, ok. I get it.
That's a good point. It's not unreasonable to think that others
could be justified in using force in a circumstance even though
you yourself would not do so. Do Anabaptists believe that they
have special instructions from God that don't apply to others?
Some Jews have that sort of belief, the Covenant and so forth.

>As for
>other Christians, I can only say that I think the imperative is to
>use every other means possible before resorting to deadly force, and
>even then to do so only if life is in imminent danger.

Ah. Good. That makes me feel a lot better.
And it squares with what I was told recently by a recent subscriber,
who is a Christian, and who doesn't post. (yet!)

I hope Missy's Christians are winning the intramural debates
against Carl's and Robert's Christians.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:23:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Fetal citizens

On Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:34:01 EST Diane Alexander <alexandd@GVSU.EDU> said:
>    What if the conception occured in a foreign land...Does the fetus have
>    dual citizenship?
>
>
>    Diane

I suppose that would depend on the laws of the land in which the fetus
was conceived as well as those of the U.S.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:27:31 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Logic Coup!
              25 Aug 1992 13:21:55 EST from <92price@GW.WMICH.EDU>

Kai:

Who might "Charles Mansion" happen to be?

And what do *you* mean by love?

--Missy P 2 B
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:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 08:59:06 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      democratic platform

Good morning:
I'll be trying to send out the demo. platform tomorrow to those who've
requested it.  Not to make this stuff public or anything, but if anyone
besides linda, Missy J., Robert, and rtf want it, please let me know!

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:02:24 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER

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

>You think I'd consider applying a butterknife to anyone? :)

I guess it would be hell on your malpractice insurance, huh?


>My personal feelings are that since castration doesn't prevent
>the physiological ability to have an erection,

It doesn't??

Huh.

So, what good are those pendulous things, anyway?

You learn something new on this list every day.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 10:55:58 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Poorly Dollar and the ERM

Ailing dollars we hate, except for exporters.

$2/pound sounds like the price of raspberries, not sterling.

But we hate fixed exchange rates even more. The failed legacy
of Bretton Woods, you know.







Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 30 Aug 1992 18:54:38 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: chipmunks

Gary:

I bet Ed Anger thinks Clinton is a communist.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:10:11 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Deadly Force
              26 Aug 1992 19:35:18 GMT from <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

Very well.  Since it came up:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for
a tooth.'
  But I tell you not to resist an evil person.  But whoever slaps you
on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
  If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have
your cloak also.
  And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
  Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you
do not turn away.
  You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and
hate your enemy.'
  But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do
good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you
and persecute you."  (Matthew 5:38-44, NKJV)

So, yes.  I respectfully disagree with you, Robert, regarding the use
of deadly force.

This is the love that pro-lifers express for those who attack them.
This is why they do not fight the police who come for them.  This is
why they pray outside the clinics.

--Missy P 2 B

PS:  Bless you, Jimbo.  I love you.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU