HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Not in a Rush to see Rush anymore
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:11:14 GMT

In <1ep9faINNslu@agate.berkeley.edu> don@ocf.berkeley.edu (Don Bromley) writes:

>In article <41447@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>>In article <By4J0C.KHM@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:

>[text deleted]
>>
>>I am surprised.. Does one have to listen to Rush to help
>>Conservative people accept the  defeat. It's now more than ever that
>>we have to stop their raving and insulting arguments and should help
>>them get used to liberalism and social responsibilities (ouch).

>  "Somehow liberals have been unable to acquire from life what
>  conservatives seem to be endowed with at birth: namely, a healthy
>  skepticism of the powers of government agencies to do good."
>				-Daniel P. Moynihan

Conservatives at birth?  Are we talking genetics?  Are we talking _Ubermensch_?
Is there something I don't know?  (Perish the thought)

>  People will never have to get used to liberalism, because liberalism
>  doesn't last.  	

Nothing lasts, friend, not even Rush Limbaugh.  Ask any political analyst
worth his salt, politics moves in cycles.  FDR presided over four terms of
liberalism.  We've just ended three terms of conservatism, and the cycle
has turned yet again.

As far as social responsibilities go, who do you think
>  pays the taxes that you free-spending liberals dole out?  It's hard-
>  working people... not you bleeding-hearts!  It's the Right which 
>  creates the jobs the Left complains about!

Snurk, snurk, snurk.

>  If I were you, I'd head to the former USSR, they need someone like
>  you to turn that whole capitalist transition around!  And look at
>  the poor East Germans.  Soon they will be experiencing the miserable
>  conditions created by capitalism in West Germany!  Boo-hoo-hoo!

You know, every time I start to think conservatives are generally a smart
bunch, common-sense if a little dry, a post like this comes up.  Zingg!!!
It's back to the old and VERY tired "love it or leave it" argument.
I've been handed this one about ten times in the last week.  Liberals hate
capitalism, so why don't they move to the Evil Empire?  I've responded to
this kind of argument seriously and with humor, and there's just not much
to say any more.


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Subject: Re: Al Gore -VP Curse strkes again?
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:57:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.200402.4286@news.columbia.edu> aa102@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Amer  Ahmad) writes:
|> In response to the story about Al Gore.  Let me just say that we are lucky,
|> as Americans, to have such an able VP.  Unlike the present VP, Sen. Gore is 
|> considered an expert in foreign affairs, arms-contorl, and the environment.  
|> He is a fine public servant who, by his peers, has been repeatedly voted
|> "most able member of Congress."

Ah yes, "Weird Al" Gore.  The man who never once voted against a spending bill
in the Senate.  No wonder Congress is lost in the woods.

-- 
// John Townsend                                   Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          "Don't blame me,        johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.     I voted for Bush."        ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342                                         (513) 865-7250 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dlovely@meaddata.com (David Lovely)
Subject: RE: Music on the Radio Show
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:40:04 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Nov13.161649.4071@memstvx1.memst.edu>, kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
|> 
|> Now for the bonus round! Who can name the most current and historical
|> "update themes?"
|> 
|> Feminist Update(s): "?"
|> [There have been several. I want either the current one, or the first one.
|> The only one I'm certain of is "Maybe I Mean Yes" by Holly Dunn]

The current one is "Men" by Patty Loveless (?)

|> 
|> Ted Kennedy Update: "The Philanderer" a take-off on "The Wanderer" by ?
|> 

"The Wanderer" was performed by Dion in 1961

|> 
|> President Slick Willie Update: "Pressure" by Billy Joel from ?
|> [What album? -- P.S., I think there's a song by The Who that's a better fit.]

"Pressure" can be found on "The Nylon Curtain" (1982).

|> 
|> Sexual Harassment Update: "My Eyes Adored You" by ?
|> 

Who else?: Frankie Valli (sans the 4 Seasons)

-- 
*******************************************************************************
David P. Lovely						    I can't believe it!
Mead Data Central			  We just elected another Jimmy Carter.
Dayton, Ohio						       Vote KEMP in 96!
		NO DISCLAIMER NEEDED (Nobody claims me anyway!)
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983)
Subject: Re: Rush's Future...
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 10:53:55 GMT

: 
: Those whose Rush memories go way back to the days of the primary
: campaigns may remember all the heat Rush took from callers because he
: was telling people to vote for Pat Buchanan, precisely because of Rush's
: dislike of Bush's turn from the conservative stance that got him elected
: in 1988....
:
Ah, yes. A kindler gentler, nore liberal nation. That is what got Bush elected
in 1988? Get real. His number one tactic has always been to portray his
opponents as Liberals. (There's that "L" word again.)  If Bush had been a real
conservative, and fought the liberals like Reagan did, he would've won a 
second term. Portraying your opponents as liberal, when you yourself are one,
did not wash with the american public. So, they elected a real liberal. More
people would have preferred a real conservative, however none ran for president
in 1992, aside from the primaries. 

Felix

 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:04:22 GMT

In article <grendel.722305682@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>In <1992Nov20.230532.24506@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov17.162705.24794@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes: 
>>|> "We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
>>|>       - some ex-Soviet leader            
>>|>                    krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
>
>>It was Kruschev.  And he meant economically bury us.
>
>Who knows what Nikita meant.  But I don't subscribe to this point of view. :)
>

Actually, this is probably what he meant.  At the time, the Soviet
economy was expanding at twice the rate of the US economy.  I believe
forecasters noted that the Soviet GNP would be larger than the US GNP
by around, oh, 1990.

Forecasters also predicted flying cars for everyone, for that matter.


A cartoon found in last week's New Yorker:
Picture: Middle-aged man talking to another middle-aged man in a bar.
Caption: "I just heard that Superman is going to die.  He's the same
	  age I am!"
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8979 alt.rush-limbaugh:10214
From: pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Not in a Rush to see Rush anymore
Date: 22 Nov 92 08:12:18 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Nov22.053906.11340@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.032626.10475@math.ucla.edu> pugh@pico.math.ucla.edu (David Pugh) writes:
>>Well, I used to be a fan of Rush but now that Clinton has won
>>and Rush has started this TV show, I can only say the following:
>>
>> Rush is BORING, PATHETIC and REDUNDANT.
>>
>>He won't last ya know.
>
>A $100 says he'll still be on the air, with at least 536 radio stations and 
>200 TV stations by March, 1993. Care to put your money where your mouth is?
>-- 
>John Switzer               | "Lobbyists are circling Clinton like slugs

Well He might be still on all these radio stations but that does not
mean that Rush is getting pathetic trying to prove his points. He
used to be quite amusing when he was on the side of power but starts
to sound more and more like a sore loser who tries to convince the
rest of the world he is still smiling, since he was right all the
time.
Rush is still serving a purpose of helping all those people recover
from the elction results and make them believe conservatism has won.
Well if it helps, conservatism has won a big time by now allowing
democrats to obtain power in house senate and white house. Quite a
defeat for those evil democrats. 
Well , enough of this. There were times when I actually enjoyed
listening to Rush, now I onlyu turn on the radio to make me feel
better. I  love to listen to someone raving and accusing and
basically making a fool out of himself. And as long as there are
people willing to listen to htis I guess he will be around. But he
turned quite PATHETIC and REPETITIVE.
Sincerely

Pim van Meur

-- 
Pim van Meurs  UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Mail Code A-030  	 UUCP : ...!ucsd!ssurf.ucsd.edu!VANMEURS
UCSD La Jolla  CA 92093  ARPA : VANMEURS@ssurf.ucsd.edu
(619)-458 9729 Home	 Bitnet : VANMEURS%ssurf.ucsd.edu@sdsc
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8952 alt.rush-limbaugh:10168 alt.politics.clinton:17596
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:59:50 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <BAGCHI.92Nov15125204@quip.eecs.umich.edu> bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi) writes:

>        So you're a fool as well.  For every one instance of the censoring
>of the "politically incorrect", I'm sure I can find at least as many
>of the so-called conservatives enforcing their own brand of "political
>correctness". This is, of course, because these so-called
>conservatives have been in power for some time... Look forward
>to a better balance in the coming years.

Yes, and also look forward to a really screwed up America.

Personally, I advocate the LET'S GO party.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 PEROT IN '96!

  - Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"
    exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org  <SLOW!>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Here's why I love this guy...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:07:00 GMT

In article <mpf1.722036329@Isis.MsState.Edu>, 
mpf1@ra.msstate.edu (Morris P. Fields) writes...
> 
>Sounds as though you would have everthing given to you rather
>than work for what you get.
>If your problem is that you do not like us because ofsomething that
>was done a long time ago or by some idiot then all I can say to you
>is:
>	Grow up. Get a life. and stop being one of the problems
>	and start helping those of us that want to treat everyone
>	for what there are and not what they look like and what they
>	believe in.
> 
> 
>Elliot, start trying to work at tearing down the walls not rebuild them.
> 
>		Morris Fields.
>		Miss. State Univ.
>		These are my opinions and that's all.
> 
Thanks for your reply Morris, but you (and most other respondants) have 
missed the point completely.  The point is, if people are going to be 
discriminated against because of the group to which they belong, it is from 
within those groups that they need to work to erase that discrimination.  
To suppress a race or a group for hundreds of years and then say to them: 
"just forget about everything you've been through, just forget that as a 
member of a class you have lost rights that others have enjoyed, and on 
your own, by yourself, *****+++++>>>>> be 'excellent <<<<<+++++*****."

I say to that, hogwash.

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell
|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Rush Butchers Facts for his own Agenda
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:09:00 GMT

In article <1erkdsINNdn4@life.ai.mit.edu>, 
joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes) writes...

>I like [thEwIndBag's] argument against
>gays in the military.  They shouldn't be allowed because the people
>in the military say that it's disrupting, etc.  Does that mean if
>General Motors said that gays cause a disruption on the assembly
>lines that we should ban them from employment there, too?

Andy, I believe that the above statement was made in an effort to continue 
the dialogue and may or may not reflect how you really feel.

Allow me to point out that the military in GodBlessTheUSA is under the 
control of (gasp!) civilians.  That's right, non-uniformed nobs.  Beginning 
with the Commander-in-Chief (the prez) extending through the various 
secretaries (forgive my spelling) of the services.  I don't believe you hit 
a uniform until the joint chief (what a concept) of staff.  In other words, the 
military does what the civilians say they should do, at least in terms of 
overall policy, certainly not day to day killing, raping and maiming, we 
leave those decisions to the generals.

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell
|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:57:27 GMT

In article <1e6arpINNgpn@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.213554.5380@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>In article <1dr3l6INNmot@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov10.171300.11448@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>>>Your .sig points out what kind of a narrow-minded person you are.
>>>And your summaries point out not only your single-minded devotion to
>>>whatever Rush limbaugh says, but the fact you have no life.  Why?
>>>What kind of life must you have that the best thing you can think 
>>>to do with your time is type up 'summaries' of the Rush Limbaugh
>>>show.
>>
>>Better watch out John, the liberals are for freedom except where that
>>freedom slays their sacred cows.  Instead of philosophically arguing
>
>Explain where I am advocating taking away his freedom OR having
>the government use force to stop him?

Your comments above, simply put, are Politically Correct and as such
are intended to shut John up by intimidation.  What you are doing is
not debating him but rather trying to bully him into behaving the
way _you_ think is correct.  This is, therefore, anti-freedom.

It is a common practice by the left to label conservatives as uncaring,
racist, fascists and other labels when they are espousing a philosophy
that contradicts that of the left.  Your comments indicate to me an
intolerance for John's alternative lifestyle of following Rush and 
admiring his style.

>>against limited government and individual rights they are only able 
>>to call you little names and insult your "alternative lifestyle" of
>>following Rush Limbaugh.
>
>Falls under the same vein of 'straights' questioning 'gay' lifestyles
>then.  

Could be true.  However, one cannot use this method of excusing behavior
as a sheild against any limits to behavior.  I cannot say that I have the
right to kill my neighbors by explaining that it is an alternative 
lifestyle (as a bad example mind you).

>One man's narrow-mindedness is Rush Libaughs' enlighted individual. 

When you come up with a philosophical argument against Rush's positions
then you can take the high road.  Until then I will remember your insults
used against John for no other purpose than to bully him.

Consider it,

Mike Best
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Limbaugh Watch Day 16
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:44:21 GMT

November 18, 1992
Dateline - Santa Barbara, CA

It's now 16 days after Bill Clinton's election and Rush is still on the 
air with 532 radio affiliates and 207 TV affiliates.
-- 
John Switzer               | "If you ask me, Larry, the Clinton Presidency
                           | has failed. What has he done? Nothing!"
CompuServe: 74076,1250     | --Dave Barry to Larry King, November 12, 1992
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | (P.S. Impeach Clinton, support the coup!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: ATTENTION!!!
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 18:32:48 GMT

<Bxyxpu.Enp@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) said:
><1992Nov19.051133.13260@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><BxI8IG.873@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
...
>>Geez, is Chaney still talking about taking over the government, like the
>>peaceful pro-lifer that he is?
>
>Of course.  Do you expect the leopard to change his spots? :-)  (Of course,
>that's assuming he's even participating on Usenet any more -- he seems to
>have been quiet lately.  I wonder why? :-)

Remind me to never threaten you, Patrick.  The last two people to do so
have mysteriously disappeared from the net, their net.bodies yet to be
found <insert malevolent laughter>.

>>I was in Egghead the other day and I thought of Chaney...  needless to say
>>I didn't buy anything.
>
>I can go you one better -- there are two Egghead locations here in Houston,
>and the last time I visited either one of them was last summer.  Needless to
>say, with what I know now, I won't be returning any time soon.

Actually, I don't hold it against Egghead.  I don't buy from them very
often because they are high-priced.

>--PLH, thanking the applicable deities for CompUSA...

Agreed.  Actually the Eggheads around here have a policy of beating any
other store's price on the same item by $1.  So the thing to do is to
check around and then go to Egghead with the lower price.  I've done it
several times now and it's great.  Usually there are 3 or 4 other people
standing around listening to the exchange.  I've had a couple of people
buy the same item because they heard the lower price.  I figure it cuts
into their margins greatly since they are not set up to deal with the
lower prices.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: cse0115@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.limbaugh
Subject: Re: This is OUTRAGEOUS...
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:01:27 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Nov14.011059.7058@cs.mcgill.ca>, costin@cs.mcgill.ca (Costin RIZAN) writes:
> In article <1992Nov12.201653.20426@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>		November 11, 1992:
>>   
>>Bill Clinton (President-Elect) was at the Arkansas War 
>>Veterans Memorial Service today.
>>THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. A DRAFT DODGER "honoring" war
>>veterans with his presence? 
>>  
>>Okay, okay. Let's just put this in perspective. 
> 	Just because he didn't agree with the war it doesn't mean that
> he doesn't respect and honor those that fought and died iin it.
> 
> 	He's never demonstrated against the soldiers themselves to my
> knowledge. Just against the politicians that sent those people to die
> in a dubious war. 
> 
> 
	Did he demonstrate against the politicians, or against the WAR?
Demonstrating against the war, politicians, or soldiers, what is the
difference?  What will he do to draft dodgers if there is a war during his
term?  Send them to Moscow for a Peace March?

	I have served MY COUNTRY for SIX AND A HALF years, three years active
with a tour in the Republic of Korea.  I hate war.  My reserve unit did not get
called because of the timing of the cease-fire.  Any abled body male citizen
who does not serve when called should not enjoy the freedoms that exist here
because others were willing to go.

	Clinton is a poor example of an American and has no bussiness being the
commander in Chief of the U. S. Armed forces.

	Perhaps if we had a mandatory 2 year enlistment, many people would feel
differently about this after their enlistment.


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Cybernetic Samurai)
Subject: Re: Al Gore -VP Curse strkes again?
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:13:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.191417.1595@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, wicksd@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Donna M Wicks) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov19.002654.26663@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov18.145634.1056@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
|> >>
|> >>Yesterday my wife heard Bill Clinton DEFENDING Dan "Mr. Potatoe Head"
|> >>Quayle's stance and statements concerning Murphy Brown.
|> >>
|> >>Argggggg.
|> >>
|> >>Looks like you Dems. bought a wolf in sheeps clothing.
|> >
|> >    Somehow, I think there's a little something missing from this account.
|> >Has anyone else heard this?  
|> >    If it were this simple, the news media would have spread it all over
|> >the place.  I'd be very interested to know the entire, accurate story.
|> >
|> 
|>    Clinton's remarks are in this week's TV Guide. He did not attack
|> Murphy Brown, as Quayle did. He said he agreed that Hollywood could
|> do a lot to portray a more positive image of family life and get rid
|> of some violence and sex. This is consistent with what he had to
|> say during the campaign - no wolf in sheep's clothes on this. 
|> 
|> BTW I voted for Bush. I don't believe in comdemning Bill Clinton
|> on something as small as this. I think this is one issue he
|> *has* remained consistent on.
|> 

OK.  I really was not condemming him in any way.  Just pointing out that
I do not think Clinton will do the things that he promised.  I am
an Independent/Libertarian and I will say thaat if this account is
correct I fully agree with it.

-- 
Doug                   

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can 
do for your country.  - JFK
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Subject: Re: Flaming Conservative (Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights)
Organization: ILS
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:58:24 GMT


> In article <BxoBI8.39r@news.iastate.edu>, barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes...
> Many of the
> signs were outright male-bashing, such as the ones that headlined
> "WE REMEMBER ANITA HILL!!!!"
> 


So "WE REMEBER ANITIA HILL" is male bashing.  So what would "TALEHOOK NEVER
AGAIN" be?  Open castration.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh