HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:58:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.115934.5213@wkuvx1.bitnet> hargijk@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>How sterotypical can you be?
>
>Bill Cosby has the nerve to stereotype all Souther white males
>as hillbillies and "bubbas". Talk about hypocracy, If I (white,male)
>were to go on t.v. and stereotype all southern black as a bunch of
>welfare cheats, drug dealers, and lazy. THen I would be thrown in jail
		 ============


	In defense of southern blacks, these should probably be 
	"inner city" blacks instead.



>for violating his "constitutional rights". 
>
>LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!!!
>
>BOYCOTT COSBY!


	Or perhaps the whole idea is absurd.  Who cares is cosby is 
	a hypocrite?  Hell, anyone who didn't figure that out when he
	started complaining about the media portrayal of blacks on
	television (meanwhile, he just finished up the last season on
	one of the single most successful shows of all time, not counting
	it's spin offs?) has _got_ to be nuts.

	Cosby used to be very, very talented.  I still laugh when I watch
	some of his early specials ("Himself") or read hos books (which
	still retain some whit), but, in many ways, he's not nearly as
	funny a man as he was before.

	He came and spoke at the graduation ceremony here at UofMD (CP)
	last year, and he was downright awful.  He was "the" impressive
	speaker (we just don't get Bush's and Reagans..sigh), and his 
	speech was obviously ad-libbed.  I assume he just didn't feel that
	he needed to bother.

	It was bad.

	I don't know if talent can fade, but I know it can become 
	neglected.  



-- 
Attempts to lessen the burden of proof in rape | Why not put me in your kill
trials are violent assaults on civil rights.   | file?  add: "/: rsrodger/h :j"
  =====boycott=is=coercion=is=censorship=is=closed minded=is=cowardice=====
	Pyramid schemes are illegal unless you're the US government.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15226 alt.sex:43227 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13891 alt.politics.correct:6378 alt.politics.equality:171 alt.politics.homosexuality:10334 talk.abortion:58057
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Date: 26 Jan 93 07:53:34 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <C1FBHr.9r0@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>
>>StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams) writes:
>
>>>Oh, Edward?  Did you know that flaming a person because of hir
>>>spelling, hir grammer, and/or hir use of the old standard of typing
>>>completely in lowercase is bad form and another sign of a 
>>>net.clueless person?
>
>>>Michael D. Adams
>
>>BTW, what's this "hir" stuff?  [Editor's note: Edward is asking
>>to point out the innate silliness of this new grammatical convention]
>
>> E.S.
>
>There are many ways that people attempt to be more accurate and descriptive
>in their use of personal pronouns than the original speakers of English were.
>They can simply use plural.  (takes an effort to be gramatically consistent)
>One can use "one" instead of "he" (or "she"), but one can get confused when
>one is dedicated to saying "one" for every individual one mentions.  He or she
>could use the phrasing "he or she" (which is most accurate), or he/she could
>use "he/she" or "s/he" and so on.  A few daring people construct a new hybrid
>pronoun that litterally means "he or she" but has fewer letters and is not
>-Rob
----------------------------
And you can become just as confused about which thir they meant as you can
with their, just not number. Of course you could always use their names or
even their sexes and it would tell them apart in many situations!
-RSW



-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kellyj@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kelly Johnson)
Subject: Re: He's back!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 06:33:53 GMT

In article <LARRY.93Jan20143606@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>Well, Rush certainly returned to his blithering idiot mode this morning
>with his clause-by-clause "analysis" of Clinton's inaugural address. 
>
>Eloquent spokeman for the New Right, indeed. Once again, intellectually,
>Limbaugh shows himself a carp sliming along in a pool of trout.
>
>You can have him. Adore him...
>L.
>"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
> I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
> Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
> (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
>Oh sure, we could do it the _easy_ way. But it just wouldn't be the COWBOY WAY.

By the way you talk, I'd expect HIM to be elected instead of Clinton next time
(except the part about the New Right of course).


From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 16:32:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Rush Military Record
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh

John Switzer writes:

	[stuff about shittos et al. which was deleted for no] 
	[reason whatsoever, and then this cool sign-off:    ] 

> -- 
> John Switzer               | Switzer's Suicide Prevention Tip of the Week:
>                            | 
> Compuserve: 74076,1250     | Don't buy three Reba McEntire tapes and listen 
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | to them all on the same cloudy afternoon.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA   that is one of the funniest signatures or any type
of posting i have seen on the net in a long while (i need to pay attention
to the end of you summaries, john!)...  

i'd add--  avoid any and all morrisey tapes!


peace out,
pjm.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14884 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13526
From: tonnison@FNALO.FNAL.GOV
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Broken Promises/Anti-Clinton sentiment growing
Date: 22 Jan 1993 21:04:57 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Reply-To: tonnison@FNALO.FNAL.GOV
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <oPFPXB5w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com>,
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>
>
>That has been a trial baloon floating around two years now.  Taxing 
>medical benefits has a lot of support in washington.   Including the 
>Heritage Foundation and Republicans as well as Dems.   And when this was 
>passing around you didn't hear Bush protesting about it.  Everybody is in 
>on this one.  $4 trillion dollar debts do this to politicians.  You don't 
>think they are going to get that kind of money from leperachauns did you?
>Get ready to pay the Bills Reagan and Bush ran up.
>
>--
>popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
>Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
>1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis


     From what I understand you feel that Americans were undertaxed during the
Reagan-Bush administrations. Perhaps you can fill us in on how much extra
in taxes you payed during these 12 years to ensure you payed your fair
share. If not, why are you better for taking the freebies than these
guys were for giving them?

				Just wanna know.
				James
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: grisha@athena.mit.edu (Grigory Golberg)
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:34:40 GMT

In article   <1k1mccINNktr@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>,
 fogarty@sirc.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:

>.....
> Going into the wrong part of
>town is different than minding your own business in your part of town.

No, sorry, you are wrong. Why is it different? What are you talking about?
Did we gave up certain parts of our cities to gangs and hoods and
all agreed that this is the way it should be? I am sorry, but I don't think
that if a white person gets killed at midnight in Harlem, then it
was his fault. He is guilty of going there! No, the fault is not on him,
and the fault is *not* of the society, where politically correct advocates
of the country's criminals seek the reasons and motives for a crime.
I may sound strange, but I think that the crime - whether against a 
gay or straight, black or white, man or woman - is the fault of
criminals. 

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
| I love the women's movement...| I am pro-choice. I just |
| especially when I am walking  | hope the choice is for  |
| behind it.                    | life.                   |
|                       (Rush Limbaugh)                   |
===========================================================
| Grigory Golberg, PI               grisha@athena.mit.edu |
===========================================================
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 20:28:21 GMT

In <1k6c2jINNg5n@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <C1Hv4E.3LD.1@cs.cmu.edu> tsmith+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Smith) writes:
>>In article <1k3nbaINNq0@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>In article <C1G1tt.Gus.1@cs.cmu.edu> tsmith+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Smith) writes:
>>>>The role of state law is to protect people
>>>>from the acts of other people.  (Incidently, this does not preclude the 
>>>>outlawing of abortion, if you start from an assumption that the fetus is a
>>>>human being.  Then you are protecting what you feel is a person from 
>>>>destruction by another person).
>>>
>..Uh, it also covers allowing women to *have* abortions, since the fetus
>..isn't just some little dot that remains a little dot for the course of
>..9 months.  A fetus can and does create all kinds of stresses upon a woman's
>..body, and a sensible government would recognise that, if another person
>..did what a fetus does to a woman, she'd have grounds for a self defense
>..killing.  Thus....

>..OK, so it's a tangent.  You were doing a very good job of discussing moderate
>..christianity, and only let your agenda slip in there once.
>..Adrienne Regard

>>I wasn't trying to present a full case for pro-life.  I was merely trying to
>>point out that my argument did not preclude the outlawing of abortion if you
>>start with certain assumptions.  I put those ifs and assumptions in to avoid
>>exactly the response you're making on the point.

>Didn't work.

>Point is, your comment above may not preclude a pro-life argument, but it
>also doesn't preclude a pro-choice argument.

>You mentioned the one, but not the other, so I rectified the oversight.

>>I'm continually amazed at the vehemence of the pro-choice lobby in insisting
>>that any argument against abortion must somehow be the rabid foamings of
>>extreme Christians who don't care about women. 


>(1) the insistance is not 'any argument'.  Rather the insistance is most
>smelly arguments.  Certainly unsupported claims, inconsistancies and un-
>addressed points lead readers to conclude that, since RATIONAL discourse
>is not the order of the day, something *else* must be taking over.

>(2) many, though not all, of the arguments presented on this board from a
>pro-life viewpoint are presented by rabid foaming extreme Christians, and
>are phrased in such a way that a sensible reader *would* conclude that they
>don't care about women.  

Adrienne, you seem ready to conclude that about EVERY pro-lifer on t.a --
their explicit statements to the contrary notwithstanding. 

>i.e., it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, 
>etc.  Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, people will come to
>conclusions about ducks....

>Adrienne Regard

Mark Pundurs
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15311 talk.abortion:58261
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Another BeZerkLey Heard From
Followup-To: soc.college,alt.almost.normal.persons,soc.singles
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 06:54:45 GMT

cascio@garnet.berkeley.edu (Jamais Cascio) writes:
] In article <1993Jan20.222931.23577@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >
] >ps: If on the Other Hand Lesbians wore
] >little signs: "Formerly Denoted as a Homonym for 
] >Earthen Water Retention Engineering Feature" we'd
] >be able to tell them from the Run of the Mill 
] >RadFemSurfNazis.
] >
] Uh, pardon me, but don't you mean Run of the _Mills_ (College, that is)?
 
Jamais,

Well actually there hae been more than Two Mills
graduates who have been able to lead healthy
and productive lives.....

ciao
drieux




-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14651 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13309 alt.politics.clinton:20770 alt.politics.bush:16187 alt.politics.homosexuality:9941
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 19 Jan 93 18:43:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <C11nEF.KGI@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1993Jan14.210240.1902@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>>This assumes that homosexuality is a natural sexual nature.  I do not concede 
>>this point. 
>
>Then don't raise it.  The "natural" argument is a strawman.
>
>-- 
>____ Tim Pierce                / 
>\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 

The initial poster used the word natural.  I just used it against him.

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
From: mdiehl@triton.unm.edu (J. Michael Diehl)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton & the Press
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:02:12 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
NNTP-Posting-Host: triton.unm.edu

In article <21755@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.074948.28660@mic.ucla.edu> rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
>>The press (1) is pro-liberal;
>>(2) is anti-incumbent; (3) will criticize almost anyone (except some of
>>the gods they worship, like that communist M.L.King Jr.) if it sells
>>advertising time; (4) will point out most things that are glaringly true
>>even if they would rather not because not doing so would make them look
>>stupid. 
>
>If we amuse ourselves by adopting, for a moment, Brian's argument, the truth
>is that all four apply to Clinton, as he is the subject and the press is
>covering him. Thus, Brian has a little conflict between 1 and 2.
>
>Of course, it could be that Clinton is not a liberal, but it's a safe bet that
>Brian thinks he is, so the conflict remains. Probably to Brian, anyone to the
>left of Pinochet is a whale-hugging psycho faggot.
>
Ah, come on! I don't agree with you, but at least you were starting to make 
sense....until you started with your personal attack...then I quit reading...
so what did you have to say?


+-------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
|  J. Michael Diehl  ;-]  |  I thought I was wrong once.  But, I was mistaken. |
|                         +----------------------------------------------------+
|  mdiehl@hydra.unm.edu   | "I'm just looking for the opportunity to be        |
|  Thunder@forum          |            Politically Incorrect!                  |
|  Thunder@Tiny*          |                               <me>                 |
|  (505) 272-HaHa         |                                                    |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:38:45 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <4683.97.uupcb@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us>, laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) writes:
> HS>|Since neither the beloved Earl Warren nor the honorable Thurgood Marshall
> HS>|had ANY legal experience, therefore -- by your own words -- neither was
> HS>|"a qualified Justice."
> 
> HS>|------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -----
> 
> HS>|Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)
> 
> I would say that being solicitor general of the United States is,
> indeed, "real" legal experience. 

Yes, I admitted earlier I was mistaken on one... but have you nothing to say 
on Earl Warren?  What were his qualifications?  

> A bureaucrat who ran a regulatory agency for a few years and had a
> little time as a judge is NOT "eminently qualified."

My point exactly.  Do I detect a double standard here?

> There were PLENTY of other, better-qualified conservative judges (such
> as Edith Jones) available for nomination besides Thomas.

In your humble opinion.  Of course, the same can be argued about *any* 
nominee.  The same WILL be argued about all of Clinton's nominees.

Howzabout -- for the record -- all you Netter's opinions on likely Clinton SC 
nominees Mario Cuomo and Lawrence Tribe?  How much legal experience do they 
have?  What makes them qualified?

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Rush Military Record
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:41:31 GMT

clinton@uark.ark.edu (Jim Clinton)  writes:

]Well my military service aside for now (even though I think I'm the only
]one on the NET here who has served his nation)  lets look at some simple

Nice try. Several of us are veterans, and some of us are Viet Nam veterans.

>facts here.  Rush Limbaugh has called one of my kin a traitor in public
>because he did not serve his country in a war that Rush himself used a
>student deferement to avoid.  Oh and this stuff about pylonidal cysts is
You're kin?

Rush didn't call him a traitor for not serving. He did attack his lying
about the circumstances, and he questioned how the military would feel
about being commanded by one who not only didn't serve, but lied about
how he didn't serve, and who actively supported causes promoted by the
enemy during a war. That is a lot different than "callng him a traitor
for not serving."
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14630 alt.politics.clinton:20744 alt.politics.bush:16174 alt.politics.homosexuality:9929
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 21 Jan 1993 13:00:28 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: eomer.hw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan20.214119.4676@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>
>Walter has a point. The bible doesn't say to hate them;It just says
>to kill them for no good reason. Not the same thing, you know.
>Remember, when the fundies come after you with the axe, they are
>doing it out of love. In fact, they are being overly kind and
>humane by merely discriminating against you and beating you up. After
>all, they could stone you to death.
>
>Robert Johnston

What a shame that Robert and Melinda, who have such a high regard for the
civil rights of others, including homosexuals, have such a disdain for the
rights of those religious men and women who do not agree with them.  I guess
Robert and Melinda, who appear to be stone throwing themselves, feel it's
acceptable to throw those stones at people or groups of people that THEY
feel should be excluded.  I detect some hypocracy (and definately
some hostility) here.  I also see that Robert and Melinda have stereotyped
fundamentalists ("fundies" as Robert calls them...though I don't think
he could give me a definition of a fundamentalist or know one if he truly
met one) and misrepresented (drastically) them.  Not all true fundamentalists
(and other religious and strongly convicted non-religious) people think 
alike, just like not all homosexuals or (name your ethnic group, race, or
religion) think alike.  You two appear guilty of the very acts that you
are railing against.  But then, I'm sure you truly believe society would be
better if everyone was a clone of yourselves.  The reality is, it isn't.

mc

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elliott@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:21:50 GMT

In article <1k43e1INNd65@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> symanzik@pigeon.egr.msu.edu (Edward Symanzik) writes:
>In article <1jkrr3INNdh7@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>|> What equal rights are gays and lesbians looking for ?
>|> 
>|> To be able to get a job, promotion or raise based on your abillities,
>|> without reguards to your sexuality.
>
>|> To be able to live where one chooses to live, limited only by ones
>|> ability to pay for such housing.
>
>Race, gender and age are things we have no control over and, as such, 
>it is unfair to limit access to basic necesseties based on these
>attributes.  Matters of choice on the other hand, should not enjoy
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
??????????????????????????????LIKE RELIGION???????????????????????????????

>this protection.

Obviously, your idea is grossly overstated.

--Frank
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Friday, 22 Jan 1993 23:30:58 MST
From: <AUJGH@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,
Subject: hey

i have two words for rush libbaugh

            slim
            fast
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Speaking of the AntiCatholic thing
Date: 25 Jan 1993 12:56:40 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

drieux writes:

>The Other Amusing part is that folks seem to
>forget that a part of the struggle against
J>FK had to do with his being a Roman Catholic,
>and HENCE of Questionable Loyalty, should he
>be elected to Presidency.

>But I guess that was a long time ago, and folks
>sort of forget that the KKK was still ranting 
>about the Catholic Threat.... as well as the
J>ewish Threat, and the Black threat....

When the Clarence Thomas hearings were underway, the
current governor of Virginia publicly called into question
that, how could we trust Thomas, when such Catholics had
a loyalty to the Vatican which might conflict with their
loyalty to the US.  Bad enough that such ugly nativistic
bigotry would again rear its head 30 years after JFK... but
Thomas is not even a Roman Catholic.  To the intolerance
of this liberal governor you can throw in stupidity.

BTW, what makes you think that the KKK and other such White Supremacy
groups are not still anti-Catholic?  

	Dave
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex