HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 19 Dec 1992 01:06:31 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> So the Mr Smith who has been telling us how wrong it is to use this
> book in public schools hasn't even read it himself.

NOOOOOOO!!!! Not that!!!  Jon, you may have missed it, but I've said 
a LONG time ago that I have not read the book.  Where have you been? 
Sheesh....

> Mr Smith is depending on quotes from an un-named "someone" who may
> or may not have read the book themselves.    Mr Smith sometimes
> says that this person is Gay, and sometimes doesn't say that.

You're a real prize, Jon.  Fortunately, the person who told me about 
the contents of the book here wrote a very good article; *so* good
that I saved it.  Hopefully he won't mind me reproducing it here...
In article spdcc.1992Dec10.185429.8115, Joe Francis writes:
>The text also has the
>image of one man in bed, covered, the other one turning out the light,
>and the caption "they sleep together".

> Mr Smith, when asked for a quote of what he is talking about simply
> refuses to give it.

Feel better now? 

> Why am I not surprised.
> 
> jon.

Gee, I dunno...maybe 'cause you like to be able to think that all
"'phobes" hate you and are out to get you?  

So now do you want to explain what this means? :

>Be very careful, Mr Smith.    Just a friendly piece of advice.

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
In-reply-to: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE's message of Tue, 15 Dec 92 08:47:59 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Dec14.155111.3969@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE>
	<1992Dec14.165332.17416@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>
	<1992Dec15.084759.10407@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE>
Distribution: usa
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:08:22

In article <1992Dec15.084759.10407@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE> k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:

>   As a Christian I view the sexual behavior of the parents as the central
>   moral issue, not their parenting skills. 

Now I admit that this line is somewhat out of context, but if I get
your drift you are saying that it is not important if dad kicks the
shit out of his kids, locks them in the closet and feeds them a diet
of dog food and grass, as long as dad is screwing a woman he's married
to?  But if dad is screwing 'Uncle Bob' then there's something wrong
with the family?  This makes me more glad than ever that they aren't
permitted to teach Christian ideals in the public schools.


Peter
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: consumer confidence (Clinton's achievements)
In-reply-to: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com's message of Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:18:00 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<42374@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> <1992Dec12.041800.2999@cbnewse.cb.att.com>
Distribution: na
Date: 12 Dec 92 14:49:14

In article <1992Dec12.041800.2999@cbnewse.cb.att.com> harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm) writes:

>   WOW!  Whoop-de-do!  That in itself will show us, won't it?  Government
>   with a conscience?  Try dismantling the creature called `Congress' and 
>   starting over......

Why is it that the conservatives, those who wish to conserve our way
of life, seem to be the ones who want to make sweeping changes?
Harry, here, wants to scrap the constitution in the interests of his
conservatism.

>   > 1992 When americans voted for change and created hope for a better
>   > future for all of us not some of us.

>   Oh, some of us voted for change, all right.  For starters, how about
>   eliminating the income tax and the IRS?  Change?  "Courage"??  The Clinton/
>   Democratic Tinker Squad wouldn't even have the pebbles for change like that,
>   much less the *balls*.......

Or failing that, just delete amendments he finds objectionable, and
take away some of the powers of congress.  If all it took to remove
the IRS is balls, why didn't Mr. Reagan or Mr. Bush do this.  I mean,
these guys were actually in the military, unlike Mr. Clinton, so we
know they have balls, right?

>   > I am off to Europe for a month

>   Hmmmmm....to which  Wonderland Continental Utopia that the PC Democratic
>   Party crowd aches so to carbon-copy over here, I wonder......

Probably off to his home in the Netherlands.  I forget, is the
Netherlands PC?

>							H.R. Holm

Where do *you* come from, Harry?

--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12011 alt.politics.clinton:18957 alt.politics.bush:14801 alt.politics.homosexuality:8255 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10516
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:45:41 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec19.155158.27487@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Karin E. Baker) writes:
]In <1992Dec17.202942.21376@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]>That's nice, but my barracks that I lived in while in the Navy
]>had no privacy when sleeping (8 men to a cube that had no door),
]>and common showers with no privacy.
]
]And were you ever attacked or assualted or harassed sexually?  No.  Then, 
]gees, that shows that a good deal of gays just as you hets, can show 
]restraint, and be more concerned with their jobs than their dicks!

So what? We are talking in this case about privacy, not rape. I suspect
that had there been an open gay in that barracks, it would have made a lot
of people nervous and resentful.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- Democracy is two wolves and a sheep using majority vote to decide what -
- to have for dinner. SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE 2nd! -
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: antihomosexualism a phobia  NOT
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:58:08 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <7122@grus.cs.nps.navy.mil> timothy shimeall,
shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil writes:
> <in response to greg_gradt's original comment that:>
>>I don't agree that any phobia is "natural", much less homophobia. 
>
>There's one problem: a phobia is defined as "an excessive or
>unreasoning fear or anxiety" (Random House).
>
>By this definition, for most people, "homophobia" isn't a phobia.  

Many people use the term incorrectly.  I try to avoid it unless it is
directly applicable, as defined, since the word has become so emotionally
charged.

>It is a reasoned and appropriate concern about the advocacy of a 
>particular social agenda, that of accomadating homosexual behavior in
>all institutions of our society.

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!... "Homophobia" is precisely what Random House defined. 
What you are describing is an opinion, not a phobia.  You do those people a
grave disservice by redefining homophobic to include them.  

The confusion arises when true homophobes rationalize and intellectualize
their phobia, as people with phobias are prone to do.  Consequently it is
difficult to tell the two categories of people apart.  Again, a good reason
to avoid using the term unless you are =sure= it applies.

>But the ACTUP/Gay pride/etc. use of the term to
>(implicitly) label insane anyone who opposes their 
>social agenda is inaccurate and unjustifiable.

Unfortunate, but true.  There are irrational zealots on both sides of the
argument. The best that we, as individuals, can hope to do is to examine the
issue rationally and reach a rational consensus.

>A homophobic is so unstable as to be judged (under preClinton
>standards) psychologically unacceptable for military service.

That's news to me!  Like most phobias, it is an invisible condition until
the individual is confronted with the object of their fears.  Since the
military won't acknowledge the presence of gays in the forces, then how can
they diagnose the condition?

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | "Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you off".
From: psb@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jr Phillip S Buckland)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Hypocrisy
Date: 15 Dec 1992 11:58:04 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Keywords: Beth, can you provide a source?

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

[...]

>Buckland doesn't
>want to continue this thread because people aren't nice to him in
>t.a.  

	I am quite capable of speaking for myself, Ms. Garvin.  I do
	not require your aid in letting others know what I think or
	believe or what motivates me to do what I do.

	Your insinuation is erroneous in two ways:  (1) I do not wish
	to continue this thread because I have exhausted all of the
	relevant contribution which I can make;  (2) The problem most
	vexing to me was the inability/unwillingness of those opposed
	to my comments to keep them in context.  After 2.5 years, I was
	simply too tired of failing to sustain dialog that I decided my
	efforts would be better directed elsewhere.  Also, the continual
	put downs and character assasinations had a deleterious effect
	upon my life away from the net.  I simply eliminated this source
	of contention from my life since I do have a life outside of
	netland.

>I really would like to see the citation.

	It won't happen.  It wasn't even given to *me* in the form of
	a citation.  How can I give to you what wasn't given to me?
	(Of course, this is all from memory, since I don't have it in
	my archives.  You're welcome to rebut it with something more
	substantial than "I'm from Missouri (the show me state) - I won't
	believe it until I see it from a source other than Buckland".
	;-)


We read the world wrong		| Phil Buckland
and say that it deceives us.	| psb@eece.ksu.edu
Tagore, from Stray Birds	| psb@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: thEwIndBag against Motor Votor Bill
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:34:25 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>>So what's the big deal, Ted?  These people are already in The Big

>#1) More bureaucracy will be required

To register all of these voters? So? If the people decided on their own
to register, the additional bureaucracy would still be needed.

>#2) Do you really want people registered to vote who are not going to vote

What difference does that make?

>#3) What if those people do not want to be registered

Why would they not want to be?

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: End the Ban on Gays in the Military
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com
     <1992Dec14.155834.7165@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>
     <YOUNG.92Dec14125616@ssdd475a.erim.org>
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:55:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.171625.13528@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Jim.Shirreffs, 
writes:
>You give a juvenile a round peg, and a square beg. You also give him a
board
>with a round hole and a square hole. Now this juvenile insists on
pounding
>the round peg into the square hole or the square peg into the round hole.
>Even attempts to pound a nonexistent peg into the a hole.
>I ask you what would you think? Kid is strange right? Probably needs
some help,
>might even be socially dysfunctional?

Ah, but what if this kid is successful???  What if he (or she) gets as
much satisfaction out of the success as the another does from matching
peg and hole the "easy way".  What if his (or her) round peg doesn't fit
into the round hole to begin with?

These are the extensions to your analogy that parallel the current
situation.

God forbid we should allow anyone to march out of step!

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | "Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you off".
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:22:22 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec11.193907.1831@m5.harvard.edu] borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
]In article <1992Dec8.203109.22379@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
]
]>Where is any individual guaranteed the right to serve in the military.  
]>This has nothing to do with equal rights.
]
]The military is a tremendous portion of the national budget, paid for through
]taxpayer money.  It's one of the major opportunities in this country for
]employment and service.  You want to deny a whole class of people this
]opportunity for service - I guess you feel that it's only for "your kind",
]your kind being people you consider "normal".  Well, I have a different
]definition of normal than you do.  We don't have room in the public sector
]for the kind of wholesale discrimination you espouse.

Dave, my kind of people are already denied this "opportunity" - we are
too old. If age is a valid reason for discrimination, why not sexual
preference? I contend that I would be a better radio operator and
electronics tech than I was in the Navy 25 years ago! But, I'm not
allowed in. Could it be that the military NEEDS to discriminate in
order to operate effectively? Could it be that this same rationale
might apply to sexual preference? Can you deny it?

I would point out that when we get down to brass tacks, we are told
that all we have to do is let out those who don't want to live with
gays and tell others not to join. Just a minor change that might
cut the military staff by half and reduce its input pool considerably.
I contend that letting in old folks like me would have less impact.

New slogan: Service for Fogies! Let us back into the military! It's
out right! Discrimination is wrong!

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"Government is the agent of those who are too refined to do their own mugging."
  Joseph Sobran
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12008 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10515 alt.politics.clinton:18955 alt.politics.bush:14800
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:19:52 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <0gV2VB1w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> frederic@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Frederic Woodbridge) writes:
>
>> > >In article <645@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes
>> > >	Blacks cannot, without much effort, change their skin colour,
>> > >and Gays cannot change their gender attraction.
>> 
>That is the most ridiculous thing I have EVER read! What you're trying to

    You must be new to the net, then.

>do, Paul, is to pass off abnormal behaviour as commonplace. Whatsmore,

    Not the way I read it.  He did not mention abnormal behavior, or make
some homophobic attempt to define gayness as abnormal.

>please DO NOT insult Black people all over the world by comparing them with
>Homosexuals!!

    I have yet to meet an Afro-American who does not agree that there are
many similarities between the struggles for gay rights and black equality.

>I note that I expect flames from all our sexually deviant brethren (I use
>that word VERY loosely).
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Good.  I'd hate to think we may, in some way, be related.

>Frederic Woodbridge, III.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    *I'm* impressed.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Madonna (was Re: Rush just looks at the pictures (was: 
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:31:39 GMT

popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:

[madonna bad, rush good....no rush bad madonna good....deleted]

>According to aa article in the Houston Chronicle a few weeks ago, 
>Madonna's book "Sex", bumped Rush's Book off of the New York best seller 
>list.

That is true, BUT it only lasted two weeks, Madonna's book sold more it's
1st and 2nd week out than rushes did in it's 6th and 7th (If you compare
Rush's 1st and 2nd it beats madonna's total), but in madonna's third week
Rush pulled out ahead again and remains that way today!

>Make up your own jokes about this.

>Pope Charles

>SubGenius Pope Of Houston.

Very Sub I suspect.....

Chad

--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: antihomosexualism a phobia -- *NOT*!
In-reply-to: green@plains.NoDak.edu's message of Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:03:26 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Dec11.014326.10008@rchland.ibm.com>
	<1992Dec11.095038.4514@wkuvx1.bitnet> <Bz4oLq.JI6@ns1.nodak.edu>
Date: 12 Dec 92 14:54:55

In article <Bz4oLq.JI6@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:

>   how many were like Slick and "loath the military".  (I was, by the way.)

I didn't hear about this.  Clinton loathes the military?  Why wasn't
more made of this during the campaign?  It was probably the Pinko
Press.  No, wait, they played up his draft status, so that can't be
it.  I know!  It was the Rockefeller Brothers!  Right?  Where does
this quote come from?


--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:47:48 GMT

harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm) writes:

>Yes, all those beer-drinking, football watching college/career/mom
>females out there among his audience that I hear call in...

You may joke about it, but I have known plenty of college/career/mom
females who drank beer and watched football.

I think the orginal posters intention was to point out how much one
particular group is attracted to Rush, not a breakdown of his entire
audience demographics, etc.

>And quoting from the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall St. Journal,
>Science, Scientific American, USA Today, and a whole bunch of other 
>publications/broadcast media shows that much of the country has access
>to is not backing anything up?  Try listening to his show a few times,
>bub.  You just *might* realize what he actually does  (but I think in 
>the case of *this* critic, that's a bit *iffy*....)

Rush frequently uses that trash science book "Trashing the Planet" to
back up his absurd anti-environmental claims. And when he quotes from
Science or Scientific American (which reminds me, when HAS he ever done
that? In the months of reading his summaries, I never came across a
quote from either of those magazine used to back up a point he made)
it is usually to poke at them and not to back himself up.

And more often than not, when he quotes from newspapers to back himself
up he is quoting from EDITORIALS or LETTERS FROM READERS.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush has no opinion??? (re: Gays in the Military)
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:35:29 GMT
     <1992Dec10.182054.19681@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <nate.916@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> Nathan Engle,
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu writes:
>>I suppose I'd feel more comfortable with the policy if they were willing to
>>debate the issue publicly.
>
>    This may explain part of your perception that Rush is ignoring the 
>issue. If the millitary top brass haven't generated any additional 
>headlines by responding to critics then the issue won't be on Rush's 
>list of current topics.
>

But that's the point... the brass has not generated any headlines because
they have =refused= to respond to their critics on this issue.

There is little doubt that they are hoping this will "blow over."  Somehow,
I doubt it.  It will be revisited everytime a heroic and decorated
serviceperson is ejected from the armed forces for their sexual preference.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | "Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you off".
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:50:26 EST
From: <MAC135@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: rush?

Rush Limbaugh is a f**king a**hole, who isn't smart enough to wake up and take
a real look at the f**king world.  (flame me, it's winter here)
                                               -mike-
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11482 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9984 alt.politics.bush:14466 alt.politics.clinton:18473 alt.politics.homosexuality:7896
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Gary Trudeau
In-reply-to: zeke@fasttech.com's message of Fri, 11 Dec 1992 09:20:33 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Dec11.092033.5569@fasttech.com>
Date: 12 Dec 92 15:24:09

In article <1992Dec11.092033.5569@fasttech.com> zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk) writes:

>   >Give me one example where Trudeau went too far.

>   The character saying this was the guy who does the radio shows. (Zonker?)
>   Anyway, in the last few panels Zonker says something like this:

>	   Of course only a court can determine guilt or innocence.

>	   But, to this reporter at least, he's GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY.

>   There's nothing wrong with SUGGESTING things like this. In fact, doing it
>   cleverly is what good political satire is all about. But this ending was
>   way over the line.

Boy, you guys are hard to please.  Here Trudeau says exactly the same
thing about the media that you do, that they have their liberal agenda
and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change it, and you
still rail against him.  If Rush did the same gag, it would be exactly
as expected and would just be another instance of right thinking.  I
don't get it.
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11390 alt.politics.clinton:18405