HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU
Subject: Re: Blacks on Star Trek
Organization: UNC Charlotte
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:17:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.022859.17716@midway.uchicago.edu>
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
 
>
>In article <C1HDMy.KGt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jj6707@meibm12.cen.uiuc.edu (John E Jablonski) writes:
>>In article <C1H2u8.Cu9@ns1.nodak.edu>, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>>|> maybe someone can give me some good role models for blacks on TV.
>>|>
>>  I don't watch that much TV, but how about Star Trek?
>>    Original--Uhura-Chief Communications Officer
>>    Next Gen--Jordie (sp) -head engineer
>>    Deep Space 9-- the commander of the space station is black
>>
>>And the best part is they all achieved their success as individuals.
>>There was no government program to "help" them.
>
>Oh yeah?  What do you think Starfleet Academy is?  You don't think that
>they don't have quotas?  What about Gene Roddenberry's original memo
>requiring that 40% of the crew of the Enterprise be women?  Or that
>William Shatner's wife played the chief nurse?  Is that nepotism, or
>what?
>
>For that matter, how many blacks were on Buck Rogers in the 25th Century?
>That was a much better show than Star Trek, anyway.  Gil Gerard could beat
>up William Shatner any day.  That'll teach Kirk to have an affair with
>Spock.
>
>Ted "the net will be closing in five minutes" Frank
>--
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu
>standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
 
I had never heard that Majel Barrett was ever married to Shatner; she WAS,
as all know, married to the late Gene R.; as his widow now she is,
I suppose, "Keeper of the Flame."
 
 
 
Another Rust-Belt Yankee Exile in Charlotte!
 
Any opinions expressed are mine, not those of the Atkins Library.
 
Bruce Alan Wilson ali00baw@unccvm.uncc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Hillary (Was: What can we expect....)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 07:03:02 GMT


Hypothetical Scenario:


John Doe gets hired for a job at the CIA.  The CIA had done extensive
research on Mr. Doe to make sure he was not a security risk.

Monday morning John shows up at work with his wife.  He gives his
wife one of his most important projects.  John is fired.


Why?  Because Mrs. Doe was not chosen to do that job.  Mrs. Doe COULD
be a security risk.  Mrs. Doe might be an astro-physicist for all
the CIA cares.  Mrs. Doe was NOT hired. 


Can anyone see how this scenario relates to President Hillary?  Hillary
is now in charge of the single largest item in the federal budget.
The American people did NOT vote for her to have any authority whatsoever
in our government.



Have a nice day,


Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers




Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:48:36 GMT

In article <1k919aINN5j8@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan28.014021.27250@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1k7cohINNqu3@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan27.173349.23024@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>>Hmm...That's not what I'm concerned about, really. I'm concerned about
>>>>the logical problems that this brings up.
>>>What, that by definition everybody is then 
>>>'less than a human?'  Is that what you mean to say?
>>Yes, pretty much. May not be a very good point, but that's what it
>>is.
>>I don't quite see that you have addressed my point. Do you think
>>you have? If so, perhaps you can explain more clearly.
>
>Eric, you deleted the portion about the temporal nature of 'less than human'.
Yes. Didn't see the argument you were making.

>*if* women are less-than-human when they are pregnant and under the compul-
>sion of an unjust government to bear children, they are not necessarily 
>less-than-human before or after.  Ditto men conscripted into service.  There
>remains a 'norm' of humanness for people; it is just seized from them 
>when the government thinks it's a good idea.
All right. I see where we disagree. I don't see the actual restriction
as making one less than human but the legality of the restriction. I.e.
I am no more human when the government owns me but doesn't tell me what
to do (e.g. when I've registered for the draft, but not been drafted)
as when it is telling me what to do (ten-hut) . If you don't hold this
perspective, I can see how we would disagree.

-Ekr





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
From: sking@wattres.SJ.CA.US (Steve King)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Stations won't air RL's show during day
Date: 23 Jan 93 04:06:14 GMT
Organization: Steven Watt, Consultant   San Jose, CA, USA

FYI, Rush Limbaugh, the TV show, is aired at 0900 on WCJB in
Gainesville, FL.

-- 
Steve            Domain:  SKing@Wattres.SJ.CA.US
                 Packet:  KC6WCH @ K4DPZ.#GNVFL.FL.USA.NA
                   ICBM:  29N 41' 26" / 82W 21' 17"
KC6WCH/4        "Dammit, Jim!  I'm a meteorologist, not a forecaster!"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:05:52 GMT

In <1993Jan19.104558.20987@yang.earlham.edu> mooreje@yang.earlham.edu writes:






































>dir


>]


>In article <C0wnsy.Hr8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>> gary@maestro.mitre.org (Gary Bisaga) writes:
>> 
>>>In article <C0uAsD.JBK@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () 
writes:
>>>|> Are you telling me there are situations in which premeditated homicide of
>>>|> a helpless, innocent human being can be judged acceptable by a woman who
>>>|> doesn't want that human being around?
>>>Sheesh.  Where would so-called "pro-lifers" be without polemic and
>>>rhetoric?  I guess we'll stop hearing these when they start
>>>understanding that many pro-choice people (myself included) are
>>>also anti-abortion.  Oops, admitting that wouldn't be good for
>>>polemic purposes, so never mind.
>> 
>> 
>> I have admitted this many times.
>> 
>> 
>> Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers



>close

A quick question please.  Why are you against abortion?  If it is the killing 
of an innocent human being, why are you pro-choice?  If it is not the killing 
of an innocent human being, then why are you against abortion?

MAC
of an innoc     
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Subject: Re: HP Guy on Rush Limbaugh
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Date: 27 JAN 93 15:25:23 EST


In article <C1H3wK.AtE@cup.hp.com>, staggers@cup.hp.com (Ken Staggers)
writes...

>Very interesting to hear that he was suspended.  Must have mentioned something
>that was still company confidential.  

As I recall, the guy was calling from CA. That means that he listens to Rush
from 9am-12noon.

Does anyone know if he called from work, or if he was at home when he made the
call?

If he called from work, I can see them getting upset, but if he called from
home...

...just wondering.

Regards,
Steve.

/*******************************************************************
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is *
********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org  BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81  *
*******************************************************************/
From: starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Look in Webster's under "Straw Man," and you'll see this:
Date: 25 Jan 93 01:28:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <C19DtI.9ps@news.rich.bnr.ca> gaj@n8ppd300.DOMAIN.NOT.SET (Gerald A. Josephson) writes:

-|>In article <1993Jan21.154312.17401@news.nd.edu>, fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu
-|>(francis deck) says:
-|>
-|>>Our poor helpless RL can't get his TV show aired during the day.
-|>>Boo Hoo Hoo.  The reason is that there is some big conspiracy
>
-Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Rush show has aired at noon here since it
-started.
>
In the LA area Ch 13 broadcasts the RL Show at 3pm and again at 1am.  So
you see on at least one station Rush is on in two different time slots.

starbuck 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: "Trivial" Felonies (Was: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:43:05 GMT

dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
>> I attribute the flap about her daycare to the same cause
>> as the railing about Clinton's "draft dodging," pot smoking, whatever: it's
>> the death rattle of the old order as it's fading from power. The
>> hippie/yuppie/whatever-diminutive-you-like generation is here: get used
>> to it. :-)
>
>I was wondering what that smell was..Thanks for clearing it up. But
>you're wrong, in any case. The hippies grew up, and for the most part,
>became responsible adults. Many of them have kids now, and took Baird's
>sanctimonious claims as a slap in the face.
>
>The only people who seemed to actually care about whether Bill Clinton
>inhaled was the media.

The only smell is coming from the sanctimonious posturings of the
sixth-grade civics experts.

> My family is made up of some conservatives, a
>couple of liberals, and a couple of libertarians - and not one of them,
>including myself, gave a damn about Clinton's sex life, drug usage, or
>draft dodging (though for those of us who find him a pompous ass, it's
>just like getting free ammunition.)

But you do care about Zoe Baird's baby sitter? Didn't Clinton break the
LAW!? I mean, sure I knew he smoked pot, but the really horrendous thing
is that no taxes were paid on it. Oh dear, oh my... my virgin conscience
can't take it.

Haven't we been somewhat inured to lawbreakers in federal office lately?
Or do we expect more from Democrats? And what are the Democrats' heinous
transgressions? Minor misdemeanors (the title of this thread
notwithstanding.)

The exiled party's plan was to leapfrog the hippies by transfering power
from the WWII generation to the young right wing mutants exemplified by
Dan Quayle. One way of doing this is to have disqualifiers like pot usage
or antiwar activities. With Clinton's election, the plan has been scuttled.

----
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: A quote to remember
Summary: what is the goal of government?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:18:41 GMT
Keywords: Mencken, government, goals


    "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
     ( and clamorous to be led to safety ) by menacing it with series of
     endless hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."


                               -  H.L. Mencken


  [ something to think about, from the people at Getty..... ]

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: sals@deirdre.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:25:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.184009.19664@Princeton.EDU>  
elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
> In article <john.727896501@misty> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)  
writes:
> >elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
> >
> >>In article <john.727819027@misty> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)  
writes:
> >>>
> >>>So could you. The Colorado amendment simply prevents the enactment of
> >>>certain laws, which don't currently exist. It doesn't establish
> >>This is false.  The amendment prevents state agencies including courts
> >>from dealing with claims of discrimination based on lesbian,  
homosexual,
> >>or bisexual orientation.
> >I did read it. I didn't see that. Do you have the text? By the way,  
will
> >the courts currently deal with claims of discrimination based on
> >heterosexual orientation? If not, what's the fuss?
> 
> According to the text of the amendment, heterosexuals are not forbidden
> from filing such claims, but homosexuals and bisexuals are _explicitly_
> forbidden.  This is the problem.  When you read the amendment, look to
> the section that says "no claim of discrimination."

How about if we lobby for a bill to prohibt anyone from filing a claim a  
discrimination. 
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13871 alt.rush-limbaugh:15195
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton Communist Cretin
Summary: Dornan the insane Californian;late-night raving
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:19:52 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis
Originator: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu

In article <C1AAMt.H1t@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
writes:
>Sorry folks, but all Dornan was doing was quoting from "Peace Eyes", a book
>by Rev. McSorley.  McSorley was a friend of Clint's and was the person
[etc etc etc]

I watched some of Dornan's ranting and I did not suspect him at any time
of quoting anyone.

When later called on it, and asked to produce evidence of his
on-the-House-floor allegations,
Dornan retreated and called his words "speculation."

Speculation is, to my knowledge, not quotation.

The Washington Times, which touts itself as the conservative answer to
The Washington Post, is a daily newspaper run by the Moonies.

The Moonies and Robert Dornan.

How joyous to see how far, and how quickly, Republicans have fallen! That
they resort these other-worldly entities for inspiration and information!

By the way, Dornan said that Congress moves to limit the sort of on-air
after-hours speechmaking that he engaged in before the election would make
the opening of the new Congress the worst "since 1860" if he was not given
back this floor-time. Does anyone know if a Civil War has started?

Or has Dornan been told to shut up by the GOP?

Dan
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Two simple questions for our 'new' government
Summary: Two simple questions for Congress and the Prez.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 01:27:50 GMT
Keywords: Money, power, limits



    Here are two simple questions for congress and Bill :


   (1)   Is there enough money to fund every good idea?
 
   (2)   Is there a limit to the power of the federal government?
From: cc774@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert M Connelly)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: abortion logic
Date: 22 Jan 1993 20:26:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I don't know about Ontario or any of the other provinces of
Canada, but in the State of Ohio one cannot be disenfran-
chised just because one is not yet born in the date of de-
cease of the parent.

-- 

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: psburns@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MAUREEN BURNS)
Subject: What will Bush and Quayle do now?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 21 Jan 1993 13:05 EST  


I am just interested in knowing what Bush and Quayle are planning to do 
with themselves now that their administration is behind them?  Fish?  Ski? 
Have either of them made any plans?  I think I heard on the news that Bush 
is building a new home somewhere,  leading me to believe retirement is his 
choice.   How about Quayle?

Just curious,
Maureen
From: shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh who?
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:33:08 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.


In article <93020.135915U28310@uicvm.uic.edu>, The Magnet
<U28310@uicvm.uic.edu> writes...

>Call me stupid, 

OK, if you insist, you're stupid.

>but after watching his show for a couple of
>minutes and reading about 30 of theses posts, I STILL cannot
>figure out what he's about? or basically, is he a Liberal
>Democrat or Conservative Republican or a green Martian???

Rush takes a WHOLE LOT LONGER to understand than just a few minutes. To
completely get in tune with him it takes several months.

To find out that he is an ultra right wing conservative republican takes more
than just a few  minutes, but definitely not any more than a single show.

Maybe your attention span is just too short.

Regards,
Steve.

/*******************************************************************
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is *
********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org  BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81  *
*******************************************************************/
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14015 talk.politics.misc:70129
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Trivial" Felonies (Was: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!)
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:12:46 GMT
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1993Jan25.215040.1073@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

<What I find interesting is that this appointment was supposed to be ground
<breaking in that Baird would have been the first woman in the AG role. She
<was a good example of a woman balancing her career and family life. So
<what do they "get" her on? Her means of procuring child care so that she
<could further her career.

	Huh. Baird's household gross income is $500,000 per year;
	there are quite a few people whose income is 5% of that
	who do NOT break the law.

<I don't consider this a coincidence. The so-called
<family values types have always looked askance at daycare as an enabler of
<"the breakup of the American family," i.e., it allows mothers to compete
<in the workplace. I attribute the flap about her daycare to the same cause
<as the railing about Clinton's "draft dodging," pot smoking,
<whatever: 

	Hardly; some of us are concerned that the Clintoon
	administration is continueing the two-tier law structure,
	whereby middle-income and poor folks get hammered for
	violations of the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli law and FICA
	regulations, while rich yuppies such as Baird receive 
	a mere slap on the wrist.


	Can Knapp explain why Mexican-American farmers who barely
	graduated from high school are expected to fully 
	understand and comply with immigration and tax law,
	while the chief lawyer for Aetna and her Yale law-professor
	partner get away with claiming "we didn't know"?
	

<it's
<the death rattle of the old order as it's fading from power. The
<   hippie/yuppie/whatever-diminutive-you-like generation is here: get used
<   to it. :-)


	Swell. So we can look forward to more of the same; "law"
	enabling millionares to dodge taxes while family farms
	are being sold to pay off huge fines.

	Ignorance of the law IS an excuse, if one is rich enough
	or a "Friend of Bill"; the rest of us can pay or go to
	jail.

	Somehow, this "change" looks mighty familiar....
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13938 talk.politics.misc:70024
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The hidden costs of Environmentalism : A case study
Keywords: r-12, cars, big bucks
Date: 27 Jan 93 06:14:26 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <C1Hs2M.3DH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:

>  I am not against protecting the environment, but should we have to pay
>this type of cost?  Why didn't someone figure out a way to lower the cost
>before they implemented the regulations?

That's a job for the free market. Instead of complaining, invent a method that
will do it for $10 and still stay within the regulations and you will become
filthy rich.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13401 alt.politics.clinton:20863 alt.politics.bush:16235 alt.politics.homosexuality:9994
From: johnch@test22.sun.com (Slam the Crank from Wheezer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:21:36
Organization: Impossible Missions Force
Distribution: usa
	<dlhanson.27.726175240@nap.amoco.com> <C0LvJr.KM7@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
	<1993Jan11.175019.6382@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: test22
In-reply-to: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu's message of 11 Jan 93 17:50:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.175019.6382@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

   In article <C0LvJr.KM7@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:

   >I'm glad to see that SOMEONE posted Biblical passages which demonstrate the
   >loving nature of Christianity. Now, if only that loving nature could be
   >better expressed, then we wouldn't have anti-gay Christians making asses
   >of themselves.

   What do you think love means?  Most christians think that love DOES NOT mean 
   letting someone do whatever they want and supporting it.

A statistical assertion.  Any empirical backup?  And just because
everyone wants to stick their nose in everybody else's bedroom (:-/),
does that make it right?

   To us (if I may be so bold as to speak for such a large group) it
   means supporting the idea that people do what is best for them.
   Now I admit that it is hard to figure out what is best for people,
   but LOVE does not mean supporting people doing whatever they want.

It also doesn't mean trying to be everyone's parents.  I have all I
need, thanks.  And you *can* support a person without agreeing that
what they do is advisable.

-- JC
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.medicine
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: AIDS Question:
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 07:20:37 GMT
Keywords: AIDS

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>In article <C17yKL.K1q@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>
>>I just heard something which I would like to hear more about:
>>
>>Jesse Helms (AGGH!! scream the liberals) quoted the Center for Disease
>>Control today as stating that the average male AIDS patient has had
>>more than FIVE HUNDRED sexual partners.  Can anyone refute or confirm 
>>this?  If in fact the CDC has come to this conclusion legitimately
>>I would be pretty startled.

>In all the research I did for Richard Posner's book on the economics of AIDS,
>not once did I come across this figure or anything remotely near it.  Nor 
>have I ever seen it in the sci.med.aids postings from the CDC summaries.  
>Sounds to me like Jesse Helms is making it up or you misunderstood what he 
>actually said.

I'm quite positive about what he said, but I didn't say I necessarily
believed it.  

>Of course, you could actually call up the 1-800 number of the CDC and 
>confirm or refute it for yourself.  Let us know what they say.

Perhaps I shall, thanks for the advice.  

>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
>standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637

Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers





Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh